Melnik v. Dzurenda, No. 20-15378 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Melnik, a Nevada prisoner, was charged with unauthorized or inappropriate use of the prison mail system after prison officials intercepted two envelopes addressed to him that contained methamphetamine in secret compartments in the enclosed letters. Melnik asked several times to examine the envelopes or copies of the envelopes, but those requests were denied or ignored. At the prison disciplinary hearing, images of the envelopes and information about their contents were the only evidence presented. Melnik testified that he was innocent and had been framed by other inmates but was found guilty.
Melnik filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against six former or current employees of the Nevada Department of Corrections, alleging they denied him the ability to examine the evidence before the prison disciplinary proceeding. The defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of their motion. Melnik had a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be permitted to examine documentary evidence for use in the prison disciplinary hearing; that right was clearly established at the time when Melnik was denied access to the material.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s order, on summary judgment, denying qualified immunity to Nevada correctional officials in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state prisoner alleging defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him the ability to examine certain documents that could have served as evidence in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Plaintiff was charged with unauthorized or inappropriate use of the prison mail system after prison officials intercepted two envelopes addressed to plaintiff which contained methamphetamine in secret compartments in the enclosed letters. After plaintiff was notified of the prison charges, he asked multiple times to be able to examine the envelopes or copies of the envelopes, but those requests were denied or ignored. At the prison disciplinary hearing that followed, images of the envelopes and information about their contents were the only evidence presented to support the charges. Plaintiff testified that he was innocent and had been framed by other inmates. He was found guilty. The panel held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff had a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be permitted to examine documentary evidence for use in the prison disciplinary hearing. The panel held that the right MELNIK V. DZURENDA 3 referenced in Wolff v. McDonnell “to present documentary evidence in” the prisoner’s own defense must generally include the ability to obtain the documentary evidence in the first place. 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Similarly, if a prisoner is to be able to respond to evidence presented against him, as a general proposition he should be allowed to know what it is and to examine it, unless there is reason to the contrary. The panel further concluded that the right to examine documentary evidence for use in a prison disciplinary hearing was clearly established at the time when plaintiff was denied access to the material. Dissenting, Judge Bennett would hold that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. Judge Bennett did not read Wolff as clearly establishing any right that would allow plaintiff to compel access to the prison’s evidence against him. The majority suggested that Wolff implicitly recognized a prisoner’s right to compile evidence in his defense. But Judge Bennett doubted that a passing comment on the prison’s ability to limit the compilation of evidence could constitute a clearly established right. Nor could Judge Bennett locate such a right in this Circuit’s case law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.