Jones v. Van Lanen

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison guard and prison hearing officer’s motion for summary judgment, alleging that defendants’ seizure and destruction of papers found in third-party-inmate’s cell violated plaintiff-prisoner’s constitutional rights, under circumstances where third-party inmate was acting as plaintiff-prisoner’s jail-house lawyer in plaintiff’s attempt to file future lawsuit against prison authorities. While plaintiff argued that said seizure and destruction of said records amounted to denial of access to courts, plaintiff failed to show that said seizure and destruction of records created any meaningful impediment to claims plaintiff had sought to bring to court, given plaintiff’s personal knowledge with respect to contents of documents as they pertained to each claim. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-prison guard’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim that said seizure was motivated by belief that seizure would lessen chance of complaint being filed against defendant-prison guard, where two other prisoners submitted sworn affidavits indicating that: (1) defendant prison guard told third-party inmate that he intended on telling defendant-hearing officer that documents seized from third-party inmate’s cell were “contraband;” and (2) defendant-prison guard thereafter told plaintiff that “you can’t sue me now,” because of said seizure.