United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, Plaintiff,
v.
M. MOORE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS
[RE: ECF NO. 29 ]
LAUREL
BEELER United States Magistrate Judge
INTRODUCTION
Ciron
B. Springfield filed this pro se prisoner's
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to complain
about the conditions at the Salinas Valley Psychiatric
Program, where he earlier was housed. The parties have
consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 6
and 19.)[1]The defendants now move for summary
judgment, and Mr. Springfield opposes the motion. For the
reasons discussed below, the court grants the motion for
summary judgment and will enter judgment against Mr.
Springfield.
STATEMENT
In this
action, Mr. Springfield sues two defendants for violating his
Eighth Amendment rights. The defendants served on committees
that met on January 4, 2013, and February 8, 2013, to decide
custody level and housing placement for Mr. Springfield, who
had arrived at Salinas Valley State Prison on or about
December 27, 2012, to be housed in a psychiatric hospital
within that prison. Mr. Springfield contends that the
defendants' decisions at those committee meetings (a)
interfered with care for his serious mental health needs, and
(b) caused him to be denied outdoor exercise for about three
months.
The
following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
The
events and omissions giving rise to Mr. Springfield's
complaint occurred in late 2012 -early 2013. Mr. Springfield
was a prisoner serving a sentence of 50 years to life. (ECF
No. 13 at 36.) Both of the defendants worked for the
California Department of Corrections (CDCR) at the relevant
time: A. Meden was a Correctional Counselor II and M. Moore
was an associate warden at Salinas Valley State Prison.
A.
Psychiatric Hospital Within A Prison
Salinas
Valley State Prison is home to the Salinas Valley Psychiatric
Program (SVPP), one of the California Department of State
Hospitals' three psychiatric programs located on prison
grounds. (ECF No. 13-1 at 6.) The SVPP is an intermediate
care program. (Id.) Although the SVPP is located on
the prison grounds, it is staffed by the Department of State
Hospitals (DSH). (ECF No. 31 at 3.)
The
SVPP is “jointly operated” by the CDCR and DSH.
The CDCR staffs involvement in the day-to-day function of the
SVPP is limited to moving inmate-patients in and out of the
housing unit, conducting disciplinary and classification
hearings, and responding to alarms. (Id.) The DSH
staff controls the activities and management of the SVPP,
including out-of-cell time and exercise for inmate-patients.
(Id. at 4.)
Each
inmate-patient in the program is assigned an
interdisciplinary treatment team (IDTT) composed of DSH
staff, including social workers, psychiatrists, and
psychologists. The IDTT makes decisions about the
inmate-patient's treatment, identifies his treatment
needs, and sets goals. The IDTT is scheduled to meet within
three days of the inmate-patient's admission to the
program, 10 days later, 30 days after that, and every 90 days
thereafter. (ECF No. 13 at 19.)
B.
Prisoners Are Classified Upon Arrival At SVPP
When an
inmate arrives at Salinas Valley State Prison for admission
to the SVPP, an Institutional Classification Committee (ICC)
from the CDCR reviews the inmate-patient to assess his
housing placement and custody level. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) The
“custody level” is a designation “to
establish where an inmate shall be housed and assigned, and
the level of staff supervision required to ensure
institutional security and public safety.” Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, § 3377.1(a). The custody levels range
from the most restrictive to least restrictive: Maximum (or
“max”) Custody, Close-A Custody, Close-B Custody,
Medium-A Custody, Medium-B Custody, Minimum-A Custody, and
Minimum-B Custody. Id. Mr. Springfield's claims
are based on difference in conditions between Maximum Custody
and Close-A Custody.
The
regulation provides for some differences between Maximum
Custody and Close-A Custody. Maximum Custody inmates are
usually housed in segregated housing rather than the general
population, have limited activities and assignments within
their segregated housing, and “shall be under the
direct supervision and control of custody staff.”
Id. at § 3377.1(a)(1). Close-A Custody inmates
are allowed to be double-celled in the general population of
a Level III or Level IV prison, are permitted to participate
in programming and activities during the day, and have
“direct and constant” supervision by staff.
Id. at § 3377.1(a)(2).
As a
Correctional Counselor II, Mr. Meden was responsible for
ensuring the proper classification of hundreds of inmates.
Mr. Meden chose to personally serve on committees for inmates
who came to the SVPP from administrative segregation at other
prisons, because prior housing in administrative segregation
indicated a potential safety concern or disciplinary history
that required extra care to ensure safe housing. Mr. Meden
personally reviewed inmate files to prepare for hearings to
determine the most appropriate and least restrictive safe
housing for each inmate. As a committee member, he saw about
10-50 cases per week, which included about five inmate headed
for the SVPP. (ECF No. 30 at 2-3.)
Mr.
Meden took on Mr. Springfield's case because Mr.
Springfield came to Salinas Valley from administrative
segregation at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville.
When he arrived at Salinas Valley State Prison, Mr.
Springfield was already designated Maximum Custody. (ECF No.
30; ECF No. 1 at 6.) According to Mr. Springfield, he was
already Maximum Custody because he was being investigated, or
had been under investigation, for his alleged association
with a prison gang. (ECF No. 32-1 at RT 68-69, 90, 93;
see also ECF No. 39 at 10 (Springfield argues he
“was in administrative segregation pending an
investigation into his involvement in a prison gang; wherein
the plaintiff was designated max custody before he arrived at
SVSP/SVPP.”)[2]
C.
The January 4, 2013 ICC Hearing
Mr.
Springfield arrived at Salinas Valley State Prison on
December 27, 2012, for treatment at the SVPP. He was seen by
the ICC on January 4, 2013. The chairman of that ICC was Mr.
Moore, and the committee members were Mr. Meden, social
worker Hernandez, and facility captain Kircher. A staff
assistant, A. Partida, was assigned to Mr. Springfield
because he was a participant in the mental-health-services
delivery system. (See ECF No. 13 at 36.)
According
to Mr. Meden, before the ICC hearing began, the ICC was
prepared to reduce Mr. Springfield's custody level from
Maximum Custody to Close-A custody, “and to clear him
for dormitory housing.” (ECF No. 30 at 3.) Things
changed at the hearing, however, due to a safety issue that
arose.
The
parties dispute whether Mr. Springfield verbally
expressed safety concerns at the ICC hearing. According to
the defendants, Mr. Springfield “said that he had
safety concerns due to being investigated for gang
involvement.” (ECF No. 31 at 2; see also ECF
No. 30 at 3.) Mr. Springfield's version is: “I
didn't say that I have safety concerns. I said it would
be hazardous to place me in that environment right
there.” (ECF No. 32-1 at 91-92.) For summary-judgment
purposes, the court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant, and proceeds on the assumption
that Mr. Springfield did not utter the words “I have
safety concerns.”
Even if
Mr. Springfield did not utter the words, “I have safety
concerns, ” it is undisputed that he delivered to the
ICC for the January 4, 2013, hearing a declaration that
conveyed safety concerns. Mr. Springfield provided to the ICC
a written declaration under penalty of perjury, in which he
stated that he was “ineligible” to be housed in a
shared cell or in a dormitory due to the investigation into
his association with a prison gang. (ECF No. 13-1 at 3-4.)
His declaration further stated that to put him in a dorm
setting “is unduely hazardous to the declarant safety,
” he must be assigned a single cell, he
“disagree[s] with (ICC) decision to house him in a
dormitory, ” and that such housing would
“hazardous to his safety.”
(Id.)[3]
Due to
Mr. Springfield's expression of safety concerns relating
to the gang investigation, the ICC on January 4, 2013,
decided to keep Mr. Springfield on Maximum Custody. (ECF No.
13 at 36; ECF No. 30 at 3; ECF No. 31 at 3.) According to Mr.
Springfield, the ICC rejected social worker Hernandez's
recommendation to lower Mr. Springfield's custody
classification. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)
Mr.
Springfield filed an inmate appeal on January 8, 2013, about
the ICC's determination not to reduce his custody level
from Maximum Custody to Close-A Custody. (ECF No. 13 at
25-28.) He requested another ICC hearing to have his custody
status lowered from Maximum Custody to Close-A Custody.
Although he wanted his custody level reduced, he wanted to
keep his single cell designation and his “Restricted
Temporarily” integrated housing code to avoid placement
in a dorm or being housed with a cellmate. (Id.) Mr.
Springfield's inmate appeal was returned to him to
correct a clerical problem; he corrected that problem and
resubmitted the appeal on January 23, 2013. (Id. at
25.) The inmate appeal was assigned to Mr. Meden at the first
level of review. (ECF No. 30 at 4.)
Mr.
Meden interviewed Mr. Springfield on February 8, 2013 about
the inmate appeal. During the interview, Mr. Springfield
requested that his custody level be lowered because the
Maximum Custody designation limited his group therapy and
yard time. Mr. Meden had Mr. Springfield appear before an ICC
that day to lower his custody level. (Id.)
D.
The February 8, 2013 ICC Hearing
Mr.
Moore and Mr. Meden both served on the ICC that considered
Mr. Springfield's case on February 8, 2013. “Mr.
Springfield had told SVPP staff that he no longer had safety
concerns and could safely program with others at the SVPP,
and he confirmed to the committee that those statements were
still true.” (ECF No. 31 at 3.) The ICC lowered Mr.
Springfield's custody level to Close-A and approved him
for double-celling. (Id.) The ICC also changed his
credit-earning status to “A1A” effective December
27, 2012 (i.e., the day of his arrival at Salinas Valley
State Prison), so that he would not be penalized for
expressing safety concerns at the January 4, 2013 ICC
hearing. (Id.; ECF No. 13 at 37.) As a result of the
change in his credit-earning status, ...