July 5, 2012

Retaliation By Prison Officals

From Everything you wanted to know about prison, but were afraid to ask" by Daniel Masterson (author's profile)


Daniel Masterson
H-22514 C4-110-L
California State Prison - Los Angeles County
44750 60th Street West / P.O. Box 4610
Lancaster, California. 93536-7620

May 20, 2012

Paul Wright, Editor
Prison Legal News
P.O. Box 2420
West Brattleboro, Vermont. 05303


In a one page decision, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the California Eastern District's granting of summary judgment to prison officials that retaliated against a prisoner for reporting sexual misconduct. Prisoner Daniel Masterson, in pro se, litigated the case since 2005 in an effort to expose and stop years of sexual abuse and misconduct at California's Mule Creek State Prison(*). Masterson wrote each and every single California Assemblymember, Senator and Congressmember at least twice in an effort to expose and stop the sexual misconduct being committed. All with negative results. Dianne Fienstien wrote the Office of the Governor (Schwarzenegger - which was reported in an article in the Sacramento Bee Newspaper), also with negative results. Declarations from witnesses and victims spanning a five year period, all stating the sexual misconduct was on-going was sent to the Court, Office of the California Inspector General, Office of the CDCR Secretary and Office of the Ombudsman. The evidence was overwhelming, but again resulted in negative results...the sexual misconduct was permitted to continue. See case: DANIEL J. MASTERSON vs. ROSANNE CAMPBELL, et. al., D.C. #2:05-cv-0192-AK, 9th Cir. #11-15023.

In a related case, Masterson appealed the California Eastern District's granting of summary judgment for prison officials for the threats and retaliatory transfer for Masterson filing the original lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit is currently reviewing that case, see DANIEL J. MASTERSON vs. SILVIA HUERTA-GARCIA, et. al., D.C. #2:07-cv-01307-KJD-PAL, 9th Cir. #11-17389.

Mr. Wright, please edit the above to your heart's content, but please report on the cases. Do not hesitate to contact me for copies of the overwhelming evidence, including but not limited to elected officials' responses, copies of years of declarations, et cetera.

Daniel J. Masterson

[Page break for separate letter]




APR 26 2012


DANIEL J. MASTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,


ROSANNE CAMPBELL; et al., Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15023

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00192-AK


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2012**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Daniel J. Masterson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgement in his 42 U.S.C. [?] 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations by prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. [?] 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims because Masterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants' conduct was based on a retaliatory motive rather than legitimate correctional goals. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must show allegedly retaliatory action did not advance legitimate correctional goals).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Masterson's due process claims because the record reflects that procedural safeguards were met and that "some evidence" supports the prison disciplinary decisions. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). Further, the decisions did not impose an "atypical and significant hardship." Ghana v. Pearce, 159 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).

Masterson's remaining contentions, including that the district court abused its discretion in denying his requests for reconsideration, appointed counsel, and discovery continuances, are unpersuasive.


* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[Page break for separate letter]

[Political cartoon on case law]


Replies (1) Replies feed

Ajj13 Posted 6 years, 1 month ago. ✓ Mailed 6 years, 1 month ago   Favorite
Hello Daniel. I read your blog posts and have really liked them. My name is Alyssa and I am asking a few people on the betweenthebars.org blogs some questions for my own research and was wondering if you would answer them if you felt like it. What are ways that some men deal with missing women in prison? Do you think men change not being around women? If so in what ways? How do you think this affects them when they are released? How do men deal with their "needs"? Do you think men become more reserved or dont know how to deal with a womens "touch" when released? ;) I just want to hear your input on this out of curiosity. Speak your mind. You don’t have to hold back. Nothing will offend me. Haha. I would love to maybe see a blog post about this too. Thank you. Hope to hear back soon:)

I would love to see you post more blogs often as well!

We will print and mail your reply by . Guidelines

Other posts by this author


Get notifications when new letters or replies are posted!

Posts by Daniel Masterson: RSS email me
Comments on “Retaliation By Prison Officals”: RSS email me
Featured posts: RSS email me
All Between the Bars posts: RSS