California Prisoner Awarded Over $1.26 Million in Suit Challenging Withheld Legal Mail Which Resulted in Habeas Loss
by David M. Reutter
On November 12, 2024, the federal court for the Eastern District of California entered judgment in favor of state prisoner Anthony Penton, adding $788,744.97 to an earlier $475,000 jury award on his claim that a guard violated his civil rights by withholding his mail without notice for eight months. During that time, Penton missed deadlines that resulted in denial of his habeas petition.
The case dates to November 8, 2007, when Penton was seven years into a 54-year sentence for hostage-taking and attempted robbery at a La Jolla business in 1999. Penton was litigating a state habeas corpus petition to challenge his conviction when he was placed in the custody of U.S. Marshals for transport to Kentucky to testify as a prosecution witness in another proceeding. He filed an administrative appeal to have his mail forwarded, which California State Prison-Sacramento (CSPS) mailroom guard Layton Johnson granted on December 21, 2007.
But from the time he left CSPS until his return on June 19, 2008, none of Penton’s mail was forwarded. In fact, the mail received while he was out-of-state wasn’t finally delivered to him until July 29, 2008. The mailroom log reflected that between November 9, 2007, and April 28, 2008, nine separate items of legal mail were received for Penton. Several concerned his state habeas petition, which a court denied on December 20, 2007, citing missed deadlines to respond or appeal that had expired by the time he received notice.
Penton sued and alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations for allowing the mail to accumulate for over eight months without notice. Johnson moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity (QI). The guard argued that there was no notice that he personally handled Penton’s mail, and no one had Penton’s forwarding address anyway. The district court denied the motion, and Johnson appealed.
In an unpublished opinion on October 30, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sustained Penton’s claims. As to the claim that Johnson denied the prisoner access to courts, the appellate panel said that Johnson was on notice that holding Penton’s mail for over seven months violated Penton’s constitutional rights, pointing to Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2005), and Gremegna v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 675 (11th Cir. 1988). Likewise, a right-to-mail claim for the delay in forwarding mail “for an inordinate amount of time” was clear, the Court said, relying on Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996), and Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233 (3d Cir. 1975).
Finally, Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), required (1) that prisoners be provided notice when their mail creates a liberty interest in receiving it and (2) notice of any mail that is withheld to allow an opportunity to protest. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3133(f), (h) also require forwarding of mail for prisoners out-to-court longer than a week, the Court added, affirming the district court’s order. Before the Court, Penton was represented by Palo Alto attorneys Justin J. Calderon of Baker McKenzie, LLP, and Harrison Frahn and Pierce MacConaghy of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP. See: Penton v. Johnson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28734 (9th Cir.).
Meanwhile, on September 13, 2023, Johnson lost a bid at the Court to stay a trial on Penton’s claims. See: Penton v. Johnson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 24329 (9th Cir.). A week later, at the conclusion of a three-day trial on September 20, 2023, the jury agreed that Johnson was liable for all three violations, awarding Penton $475,000. He filed a motion for costs and fees for his attorneys. Johnson filed a motion for a new trial. But the district court denied that motion on July 12, 2024. See: Penton v. Johnson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123082 (E.D. Cal.).
That paved the way for its latest decision, awarding Penton $712,500 in attorney’s fees, representing 150% of his judgment, though he was responsible to pay a portion of those fees equal to 25% of the judgment, or $118,750—both as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Another $34,202.25 was awarded for attorney’s fees spent to defend the judgment during Johnson’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit and motion for a new trial. In addition, costs of $160,792.72 were awarded to Plaintiff. With his jury verdict, Penton’s total recovery was 1,263,744.90. It is a remarkable outcome for Penton’s perseverance through nearly 13 years of litigation. See: Penton v. Johnson, USDC (E.D. Cal.), Case No. 2:11-cv-00518.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login