Thiele v. Hough et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
RAYMOND A. THIELE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEREMY HOUGH, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DENYING IN CAMERA REVIEW
(Docket Nos. 68 & 71)
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Raymond A. Thiele, a self-represented prisoner in the custody of the
Alaska Department of Corrections (“DOC”), filed this action based on claims of unlawful mail
interference pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits a plaintiff to seek relief for federal
constitutional violations by officials acting under color of state law. 	The Court previously has
dismissed all but one of Plaintiff’s claims.1
Before the Court are the two remaining Defendants, retired Sergeant Gwen Helms
and retired Department of Corrections employee Gladys Hendricks, with a Motion for Summary
Judgment in which they request that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Prisoner’s Complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed with prejudice.2 Plaintiff opposes the instant motion,
and also requests an in camera review of Alpha-2 Mod Logbook from the Anchorage jail in order
1 Docket 63.
2 Docket 68.
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 78 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 4

Thiele v Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Order re Motion for Summary Judgment 	Page 2
to more fully establish the factual basis of his complaint.3 Defendants have replied, and this matter
is ripe for decision.4
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) directs a court to “grant summary judgment
if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The moving party bears the initial burden of proof for
showing that no fact is in dispute.5 If the moving party meets that burden, the non-moving party
must present specific factual evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of fact for
trial.6 The non-moving party may not rely on mere allegations or denials.7 He must demonstrate
that enough evidence supports the alleged factual dispute to require a finder of fact to make a
determination at trial between the parties’ differing versions of the truth.8
When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must accept as true all
evidence presented by the non-moving party, and draw “all justifiable inferences” in the non-
moving party’s favor.9 To reach the level of a genuine dispute, the evidence must be such “that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”10 The non-moving party “must
do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”11 If the
3 Dockets 71, 72.
4 Docket 75.
5 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
6 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).
7 Id.
8 Id. (citing First National Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253 (1968)).
9 Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–59 (1970)).
10 Id. at 248.
11 Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986)).
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 78 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 4

Thiele v Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Order re Motion for Summary Judgment 	Page 3
evidence provided by the non-moving party is “merely colorable” or “not significantly probative,”
summary judgment is appropriate.12
III. 	DISCUSSION
The gravamen of Plaintiff’s Complaint is set forth in the attachment to Claim 1.13
Plaintiff asserts that on or about June 6, 2017, the ACC mailroom clerk opened and read a letter
from his attorney (i.e., legal mail) outside of Plaintiff’s presence. Plaintiff reaches this conclusion
because the letter in question was delivered to him as part of his regular mail, which is subject to
opening and review, and not as part of his legal mail, which is not. Plaintiff seeks $10,000.00 in
general damages, plus $25,000.00 in punitive damages from each Defendant, plus costs and fees.
Plaintiff asserts that this was one of three incidents where his mail rights were violated over a
roughly three-month period, during which time defendant Helms was the acting Facility Standards
Officer and during which time defendant Hendricks was one of two mail room clerks. Plaintiff
acknowledges in his opposition memorandum that these problems ceased after this last incident.14
Although Defendants’ Answer denies the factual assertions Plaintiff asserts
above,15 these need not be conclusively resolved in order to address the current summary judgment
motion. “Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the
defendant . . . A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the
supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to
prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”16 Defendant Helms,
the acting Facilities Standards Officer, did nothing personally to interfere with Plaintiff’s mail, did
12 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
13 Docket 54 at 4.
14 Docket 72.
15 Docket 64.
16 Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 78 Filed 10/18/23 Page 3 of 4

Thiele v Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Order re Motion for Summary Judgment 	Page 4
not train or supervise mail room staff, and was not responsible for the activities of the mail room
clerks.17 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the
personal involvement of Defendant Helms in the alleged violations.
As for Defendant Hendricks, she was one of two mailroom clerks. Plaintiff cannot
show that Hendricks is the clerk who opened or misdirected the letter in question. Moreover, even
if it was Defendant Hendricks who was involved in this incident, it cannot be shown that the
conduct in question was anything other than negligence on her part.18 Nor has Plaintiff created a
genuine issue of fact with respect to a “pattern of misconduct” directed at Plaintiff, warranting
injunctive relief.
While Plaintiff speculates that he was personally attacked by mailroom staff and
others during a brief time over seven years ago, he has not established a causal connection between
either of the Defendants and a violation of his constitutional rights. Nor has Plaintiff established
a pattern of conduct directed at him by either of the Defendants.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, as well as for the reasons clearly set forth
by Defendants in their relevant papers, the Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 68 is hereby
GRANTED, and this matter will be dismissed with prejudice.
Moreover, in as much as the Motion for In Camera Review at Docket 71 is both
moot and irrelevant to the issues above, it is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
17 Docket 69 at 8 (citing Docket 75 (Helms Declaration)).
18 See Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding the improper opening of
a prisoner’s letter no more than negligent, and thus insufficient to support a §1983 claim).
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 78 Filed 10/18/23 Page 4 of 4