Christopher Hargis v. Phil Foster, Beauchamp, Lahaei, D.W. McEcheron and D.H.O. Crawford

282 F.3d 1154 Christopher HARGIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phil FOSTER, Beauchamp, Lahaei, D.W. McEcheron, and D.H.O. Crawford, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-35466. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 8, 2001. Filed March 7, 2002. Gregory Mann Miller, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiff-appellant. Stephanie A. Altig, Boise, ID, for the defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-00510-MHW. Before: B. FLETCHER, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. BETTY B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge. 1 Christopher Hargis, an Idaho prisoner who suffers from a neurological disorder causing jerking and shaking, brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , against the defendant prison officials in their individual and official capacities for violating his First and Eighth Amendment rights. He asserts that the defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech when they punished him under a coercion regulation. Hargis was disciplined for violating the coercion regulation when he informed a guard that shaving with a razor blade endangered…

Christopher Hargis, an Idaho prisoner who suffers from a neurological disorder causing jerking and shaking, brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , against the defendant prison officials in their individual and official capacities for violating his First and Eighth Amendment rights. He asserts that the defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech when they punished him under a coercion regulation. Hargis was disciplined for violating the coercion regulation when he informed a guard that shaving with a razor blade endangered his safety *1156 due to his medical condition and that the guard’s actions and statements could come up in pending state court litigation. Har-gis also claims the defendants used the coercion regulation as a pretext to retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Finally, he claims the defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment by forcing him to injure himself by shaving with a razor blade. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on the free speech claim and dismissed the remaining claims.

We…

dissenting.

A recalcitrant prisoner seeking an exception to a prison regulation threatens a guard to avoid compliance. The warden affirms a disciplinary violation after a prison hearing finds the words to be coercive. The Court now holds that summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing his civil rights suit was improper because a jury must consider the context in which inmate Hargis delivered his threatening words to correctional officer Beauchamp. The problem with the Court’s opinion is that it virtually ignores the most important aspect of the context in which the speech was delivered — in a prison. And it is the *1161 prison setting that dictates the outcome in this case.

Individuals sentenced to prison simply do not enjoy the same liberties' as ordinary citizens. Obviously, their ability to travel freely is practically negated. They can be locked up, ordered about, told when to eat, when to exercise, when to shave, when to shower, and when to sleep. They also may be deprived of their right to vote. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 , 94 S.Ct. 2655 , 41 L.Ed.2d 551 (1974). It should therefore surprise no one that prisoners do not enjoy the same First Amendment…