United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRANSFER TO ALTERNATE DETENTION FACILITY
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On April 22, 2014, Defendant Alberto Larez filed a Motion for Transfer to Detention Facility under Rules 46(h)(1) and 47 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and set the motion on the Court's calendar for May 8, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter. (Dkt. No. 398 ("Motion").) In summary, Larez submits that he:
is housed in an AD/SEG unit, in near proximity to informants, gang drop-outs, rejects and sex offenders who by their actions and/or status provoke Mr. Larez. This has created an intolerably hostile housing situation for Mr. Larez. Mr. Larez is currently housed next to an individual who Mr. Larez knows to be an informant in a related NF case. Mr. Larez can see this individual when he comes in and out of his cell. Mr. Larez has characterized his proximity to this individual as "torture."
(Motion at 3:14-20; see also Declaration of Counsel in Support of Motion for Transfer at ¶¶ 2, 3.) Larez acknowledges that he is "classified as a threat to others" and that the "government has turned over a video and other materials purporting to depict Mr. Larez severely beating another inmate." He requests that he be transferred to a facility that contains a Segregated Housing Unit ("SHU"). (Motion at 3:22-4:2.) In bringing this motion, Larez relied principally on the United States Supreme Court opinion, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).
The Government filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Transfer to Alternate Detention Facility. (Dkt. No. 400.) Therein, the Government provided the Court with the statutory and administrative authority it possesses "to determine where to house its prisoners." ( Id. at 2.) The Government further proffered that (i) Larez was disciplined for hoarding and concealing 28 allergy pills inside a Speed Stick deodorant container ( id. at 3), and (ii) the jail is in compliance with the Court's July 2, 2013 Order ( id. at 4).
Larez filed a Reply Brief but did not address or refute any of the cited authorities, implicitly conceding their applicability. (Dkt. No. 401.) Rather, he again relied on Bell to support his position. In addition, Larez did not refute the truth of the Government's proffer.
Notwithstanding the cited controlling authority supporting the Government's position, the Court has reviewed Bell and finds that Larez's motion lacks merit on the proffer made. In Bell, the Supreme Court reversed a Circuit Court after it affirmed that certain conditions of confinement and practices at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City presented constitutional concerns. As a preliminary matter, none of the conditions or practices at issue in Bell concerned a transfer, but the opinion does provide a road map for district judges in evaluating conditions of confinement. The salient points of the opinion are quoted here:
In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention that implicate only the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, we think that the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee [or otherwise violate the Constitution]. Bell, 441 U.S. at 536-37.
Once the Government has exercised its conceded authority to detain a person pending trial, it obviously is entitled to employ devices that are calculated to effectuate this detention. Id. at 537.
Loss of freedom of choice and privacy are inherent incidents of confinement in such a facility. And the fact that such detention interferes with the detainee's understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible and with as little restraint as possible during confinement does not convert the conditions or restrictions of detention into "punishment." Id.
A court must decide whether the [condition] is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other ...