Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hall v. Pliler

November 15, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge


Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is Defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment (Doc. 94). Plaintiff filed a response, but not a formal opposition to the motion (Doc. 97).


The court previously granted in part and denied in part a prior motion for summary judgment (Docs. 77, 84). Pursuant to the order granting in part the prior motion for summary judgment, the only defendants remaining in this case are Ranzany, Ugalino, Lt. Johnson, Connor, Gold, Goughnour. The only claims remaining are Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims regarding denial of food and showers, and his due process claims regarding false disciplinary charges and violations in the context of disciplinary hearings.

A. Summary of Plaintiff's Claims

The court previously summarized Plaintiff's claims in relation to the prior motion for summary judgment, and repeats here only those allegations relevant to the remaining claims:

This action proceeds on plaintiff's original complaint. Plaintiff does not set forth any specific constitutional claims but, rather, outlines in mostly chronological order a series of factual allegations. One paragraph of the complaint, however, appears to be a general statement of the nature of his claims. Plaintiff states:

I've never filed a lawsuit before*fn1 and I'm having a hard time trying to hold my emotions in check with regards to civil service employees premeditated and sophisticated malice and inhumane treatment they are subjecting me to, and I've only been convicted of a petty theft of two coffee jars with a total cost of $9.98 and these people (staff) are committing [sic] a federal offense against me, by conspiracy under the color of law, and they have wage an attack knowingly with so many staff to seek the advantage to oppress my rights, confronting me with so many and numerous acts of misconduct that the writing of this civil rights complaint with details to me the criteria for the court to take action because I'm a victim of crimes pursuant to federal laws and state laws by prison staff. I need "HELP" just to get this complaint filed right, so they (staff) don't get away with their crimes against me and the laws of the legal community or courts or laws of land. . . .(emphasis in original).

Plaintiff states that he arrived at California State Prison -- Sacramento ("CSP-Sac.") on May 31, 2001. According to plaintiff, upon his arrival be was mistreated by correctional officers. Specifically, he claims that officer Andrade placed handcuffs on him too tight causing him to "cry[] out loud in pain for four hours."*fn2 He also claims that officers Matthews, Turner, Villasenor, Ranzany, Ugalino, and Gonzales harassed him by denying him food and showers, and by "opening and closing my cell door continually" and "coming by my cell door whispering threats."*fn3 He also alleges that these officers made "fraudulent and false disciplinary allegations to make my time of imprisonment longer." Plaintiff further asserts that these officers sent "prison gang members to my cell door trying to intimidate me and terrorize me by try to pick a fight with me. . . ." He states that the officers acted "in retaliation for me filing inmate appeals on staff." . . .

Next, plaintiff alleges that, on June 13, 2001, he was assigned to be housed in the general population "for the sole purpose to have me attacked." He states that this assignment was made notwithstanding his having submitted "formal letters to the warden and [classification] committee members" regarding alleged staff misconduct and safety concerns.

Plaintiff states that "during this period of time" there was a lock-down of "more than half of the African American inmates on Facility C-Yard" due to "staff assaults on inmates or inmates and staff fights." He states that he was "one of the few African Americans not on lock-down." According to plaintiff, on June 18, 2001, correctional officer Matthews ordered him transferred to "the Block where the violent incidence with staff happen." Plaintiff states that he refused to be transferred and that "the same day, some staff I did not know came to my cell saying 'you're going to get it!'" Plaintiff adds: "That evening C/O Gonzales . . . alleged fraudulently that I was masturbating to get [me] removed and placed in administrative segregation." He states that he was placed in a "holding cage" but was later released back to his cell after "Sgt. Featherly determined that the allegations was false. . . ."*fn4 Plaintiff claims that ultimately he was placed in administrative segregation on June 20, 2001, because he submitted an inmate grievance "to expose the prostitution racket by staff that flourish . . . by a code of silence and secrecy."

According to plaintiff, between June 20, 2001, and July 25, 2001, officer Ranzany "came to Facility-A ad. seg. and threaten me, making his finger like a gun and pointing it at me." Plaintiff states that he sent "another complaint" to the warden the following day. . . . . . .

Next, plaintiff alleges that, on October 14, 2001, he was denied a shower by officer Smith.*fn5 He also claims that, on December 15, 2001, officer Smith "put foreign particles in my food that would choke me." He adds that officer Smith "made threats and harass me between these two dates." Plaintiff states that, on October 24, 2001, officer Shrode told plaintiff "We'll get you, you are by yourself" and, while the officer was walking away, he added: "We gone kill that bastard." According to plaintiff, on November 2, 2001, officers Chastain and Mini "sign fraudulent and false documents to send me to Facility B, by deliberate indifference and totally a reckless disregards for my health and safety to set the stage for me to be assaulted or murdered, because I went on tape about staff and inmates attempts and threats on my life. . . ."*fn6 Plaintiff states that he received "another fraudulent and false reviews of guilty findings for not following a order to go to A-Yard on Nov. 28, 2001."*fn7 He alleges that, on January 31, 2002, associate warden Chastain and officers Martel and Mini "again with deliberate indifference and totally reckless disregards for my health and safety sign fraudulent documentations and record to remove me from Ad. Seg. and send me back to C-Yard for the sole purpose to bring about my murder or assault in retaliation for all my writing and complaints on staff misconduct." He states that "[e]ven Capt. Mandeville provided a false . . . report that does not address, nor cover the true risk, especially threats by Sgt. Rogel and Sgt. Murphy and controlled inmate(s) element."*fn8

Next, plaintiff states that, on December 2, 2001, "the same C/O Gonzales that I wrote a complaint about making false allegations of masturbation to Sgt. Featherly on June 19, 2001, . . . found her way from C-Yard to A-Yard and to my Ad. Seg. unit by the support of Lt. Gold and other staff, and wrote a fraudulent allegation of masturbation to turn my lock-up to take time from me." Plaintiff claims that officer Gold denied him the opportunity to call a witness at a rules violation hearing resulting from the December 2, 2001, rules violation. He adds that associate warden Goughnour "upheld the due process violation and fraudulent report." . . .

Next, plaintiff returns to his allegations regarding his being ordered to return to the general population despite risks to his safety. He claims that, on January 31, 2002, officer May ordered him to return to the general population and threatened him with a rules violation charge if he did not comply.*fn9 Plaintiff did not comply and officer May charged him with a rules violation. Plaintiff states that this rules violation was "classified" by officer Schroeder, he was found guilty by officer Johnson, and the finding was upheld by officers Connor and associate warden Goughnour.*fn10 Plaintiff states that he was placed in administrative segregation as a result of this violation and that such placement was in violation of his due process rights because he "never received a CDC-114 lock-up order." He states that he was in administrative segregation from January 31, 2002, through March 12, 2002, without an appropriate lock-up order. . . .

The remainder of plaintiff's allegations, which cover the period from March 18, 2002, through July 15, 2002, do not relate to correctional staff who were named as defendants in the complaint. (Findings and Recommendations, Doc. 77, at 2-9).*fn11

B. The Parties' Evidence

Defendants filed with their motion a statement of undisputed facts. Plaintiff's only opposition to the motion is an unsigned two page response, wherein he states the motion is defective because the Defendants previously indicated the matter is ready for trial, his claims have nothing to do with his conviction or duration of his sentence, and if the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity he would have previously been so informed. He does not, however, object to any of the Defendants' undisputed facts, nor does he submit any evidence to support his claim. The opposition/response he filed is not even signed under penalty of perjury for the court to be able to consider it a declaration.

In the unopposed statement of undisputed facts, Defendants set forth the following relevant facts:*fn12

1. On June 20, 2001, plaintiff reported to staff that his safety might be in jeopardy if he remained in the C-Facility General Population. In response to this complaint, plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation for his safety and an investigation was ordered;

2. A hearing on plaintiff's rules violation was held on July 11, 2001, and plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying orders;*fn13

3. On July 12, 2002, plaintiff was charged with another rules violation for refusing to relinquish his food ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.