United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED [ECF
NO. 71.]
Plaintiff
Bob Bejarano is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff declined United States magistrate judge
jurisdiction on January 27, 2011; therefore, this matter was
referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Defendants have not consented
or declined United States magistrate judge jurisdiction.
Currently
before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, filed October 14, 2015.
I.
RELEVANT HISTORY
This
action is proceeding on Plaintiffs first amended complaint,
filed May 31, 2011, against Defendants Allison, Goss,
Hernandez, and Perez for subjecting Plaintiff to conditions
of confinement, namely the denial of outdoor exercise in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
After
the denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on
October 31, 2014. (ECF Nos. 53 & 55.)
On
October 14, 2015, Defendants filed the instant motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 71.) After Plaintiff received an
extension of time, he filed an opposition to Defendants'
motion on December 11, 2015. (ECF No. 75.) Defendants filed a
reply on January 12, 2016. (ECF No. 78.) Pursuant to Local
Rule 230(l), the motion is deemed submitted for
review without oral argument.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Any
party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall
grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)
(quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v.
U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each
party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed
or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular
parts of materials in the record, including but not limited
to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2)
showing that the materials cited do not establish the
presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court
may consider other materials in the record not cited to by
the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch.
Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord
Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th
Cir. 2010).
In
judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court
does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting
evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984 (quotation
marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes
entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach
v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir.
2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Summary of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint alleges fact related to his
conditions and confinement from approximately June 21, 2009
until April 22, 2010. On June 21, 2009, Facility C was placed
on lockdown for a group disturbance between southern and
northern Hispanics. From July 12, 2009 until July 18, 2009,
prison officials completed a search of the facility and
conducted interviews. Shortly thereafter, southern Hispanic
inmates were subjected to a modified program that deprived
inmates of out-of-cell exercise, pending further
investigation. The modified program without out-of-cell
exercise continued for eleven months. During the lockdown,
Plaintiff was confined in his cell seven days a week except
for a five minute shower every other day except Sundays.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Allison and Hernandez were
directly responsible for the lockdown of Facility C that
denied Plaintiff out-of-cell exercise. As a result of the
lockdown, Plaintiff suffered from muscle cramps, stress,
migraine headaches, constipation, stomach aches, heart burn,
and thoughts of suicide.
On
March 1, 2009, Plaintiff submitted an appeal requesting
access to the mini-concrete yards for out-of-cell exercise.
On or about March 11, 2010, Defendant Perez denied
Plaintiff's appeal. On or about March 20, 2010,
Defendants Goss and Hernandez denied Plaintiff's second
appeal. The appeal denial informed Plaintiff that Facility C
did not have enough staff to monitor a group of inmates in
the mini-concrete yards. The lockdown period ended on April
22, 2010.
B.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
1.
Plaintiff Bob Bejarano (Plaintiff) is a prisoner in the
custody of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR). (First Am. Compl., ECF. No. 9.)
2.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his health by denying him outdoor exercise
during a modified program that lasted approximately ten
months at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
and Prison (SATF) in Corcoran, California, from June 22,
2009, to April 22, 2010. (Id. at pp. 4-7.)
3.
Facility C at SATF was placed on a “modified
program” on June 22, 2009, because of a group
disturbance that occurred between the Southern Hispanic and
Northern Hispanic inmate population on June 21, 2009, at
approximately 12:08 p.m. (Allison Decl. ¶ 2; Hernandez
Decl. ¶ 2; Goss Decl. ¶ 2; Perez Decl. ¶ 2.)
4. A
modified program is colloquially referred to as a
“lockdown, ” while the “group
disturbance” could be described in layman's terms
as an “inmate riot.” (Id.)
5.
Facility C at SATF was a Level IV general population unit
that housed over 650 inmates during the period in question,
June, 2009, through April, 2010.[1] (Id. at ¶ 3.)
6.
These inmates typically have a history of violent and
assaultive behavior and numerous convictions for rule
violations within CDCR.[2] (Id.)
7. Many
of the Facility C inmates were incarcerated for gang-related
convictions or convictions under California's
three-strikes law, and have prison sentences of life terms
without parole or determinate sentences of fifty years or
more. (Id.)
8. Such
inmates require an extremely higher level of security because
they are a greater security threat than most other general
population inmates. (Id.)
9.
Inmates often disrupt the safety and security of a facility
such as Facility C by engaging in violent acts. (Id.
at ¶ 4.)
10. If
an incident is a result of unrest among significant numbers
of inmates or different groups of inmates, the warden may
implement a lockdown or modified program under California
Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3000. (Id.)
11.
During a modified program, the affected inmates' access
to outdoor exercise, visiting, quarterly packages, and
canteen may be limited or suspended until prison staff and
administration can be reasonably certain that the violent
acts will not continue. (Id.)
12. A
modified program can cover all of the facility's inmates,
or may apply to only certain groups of inmates. (Id.
at ¶ 5.)
13.
These “programming changes” are designed to
protect inmates, staff, and the prison while officials
investigate and attempt to determine how the inmates'
customary privileges can be restored. (Id.)
14. The
modified program remains in effect until all searches,
investigations, and interviews conducted in the aftermath of
the disruptive incident are completed, and prison staff and
administration determine that a return to normal programming
can be safely achieved. (Id.)
15. The
objective of the modified program is to restore inmate
privileges as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so.
(Id. at ¶ 6.)
16. In
all instances, modified programs remain in place only as long
as necessary to ensure the safety of the inmates and prison
staff. (Id.)
17.
Modified programs are never meant to be punitive or otherwise
implemented in bad faith. (Id.)
18.
During the modified program in question, and during modified
programs in general at SATF, prison officials and
administration met regularly with Defendant Allison to assess
Facility C's conditions and determine whether the inmates
could be safely returned to normal programing. (Id.
at ¶ 7.)
19. The
SATF administration met to discuss the progress of the
investigation, the status of the modified program, any
further incidents of violence, and the development of a plan
to resume normal programming. (Id.)
20.
Defendant Allison met with the Chief Deputy Warden, the
Associate Warden, and the Captain of Facility C during these
meetings. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
21. The
Facility Captain and Associate Warden reported information
solicited from staff regarding inmates on Facility C.
(Id.)
22. The
Facility Captain and Associate Warden could also make
recommendations for changes in programming based on relevant
intelligence and information collected during the course of
the investigation. (Id.)
23. The
Facility Captain, Lieutenant Correctional Officers, and
Associate Warden do not have any decision-making authority to
make adjustments to or terminate the modified program.
(Id.)
24.
That authority rested solely with Defendant Allison as the
Warden of SATF. (Id.)
25.
During a modified program, the Facility Captain prepares a
“program status report” detailing the
implementation of the modified program, including the status
of suspended privileges, searches and interviews, and the
release process. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
26.
Program status reports also explain to the inmates how basic
needs will be met during the modified program, such as
medical care, feeding, showers, etc. (Id.)
27.
Program status reports must be approved by the Warden and
remain in effect until a new report is issued. (Id.)
28. The
Facility Captain, Lieutenant, Correctional Officers, and
Associate Warden never have authority to deviate from the
restrictions imposed in the program-status-report matrix.
(Id. at ¶ 10.)
29.
During a modified program that restricted access to the
recreation yard, the Facility Captain, Lieutenant,
Correctional Officers, and Associate Warden could not restore
outdoor exercise for general population inmates without
authorization from the Warden. (Id.)
30.
Defendants were familiar with the program-status reports used
to implement and record information about the modified
program implemented at SATF. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
31.
Program-status reports are prepared at or near the time of
the acts, events, decisions, and conditions that they record.
(Id. at ¶ 11.)
32.
Program-status reports are prepared by someone with knowledge
of the information recorded in the program-status reports, or
they are prepared from information transmitted by someone
with knowledge of the information recorded in the
program-status reports. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
33.
SATF maintained program-status reports in the regular course
of business for this modified program, and the preparation of
program-status reports is a regular practice associated with
the implementation of modified programs. (Id. at
¶ 11.)
34. A
violent group disturbance occurred on Facility C at SATF on
June 21, 2009, between the Southern Hispanic and Northern
Hispanic inmate population. (Id. at ¶ 12.)
35. It
is well known within CDCR that Southern Hispanic inmates and
Northern Hispanic inmates harbor tremendous enmity for each
other, and violent incidents between the two groups are not
uncommon within CDCR prisons. (Id.)
36. The
June 21, 2009 group disturbance occurred simultaneously on
Facility C Yards 1 and 2, and in the dayrooms in Housing
Units C4, C6, and C8. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
37. The
simultaneous incidents occurring in multiple locations of the
facility showed that this disturbance was a long-planned and
coordinated attack of a serious nature. (Id.)
38. As
a result of the incident, Defendant Allison authorized
Facility C to be placed on a modified program to ensure the
safety and security of the prison, the Facility, the inmates,
the prison staff, and the community, until this incident
could be investigated and it could be determined that another
such incident would not occur if Facility C was returned to
normal programing. (Id.)
39.
This incident was assigned log number SATF-03-09-05-0235.
(Id.)
40. A
prison riot previously occurred on Facility C between Black
and White inmates on July 25, 2008. (Id. at ¶
14.)
41.
This incident resulted in a modified program and was assigned
log number SATF-03-08-07-0293. (Id.)
42. In
light of the June 21, 2009, disturbance, and because of
continuing concerns over inmate, staff, and Facility safety,
the modified program with log number SATF-08-09- 05-0235
superseded the modified program implemented for incident
number SATF-03-08-07-0293. (Id.)
43. A
total of seventy-five inmates were involved in the June 21,
2009 disturbance. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
44.
Three Black inmates were also identified as being involved in
the incident and eleven Northern Hispanic inmates were
treated at outside hospitals for injuries sustained during
the melee. (Id.)
45. The
entire inmate population on Facility C was initially placed
on modified program pending a facility-wide search and
investigation. (Id.)
46.
Searches were conducted in all eight housing units, the
program support areas, four dining halls, and two yards.
(Id.)
47. On
June 30, 2009, another violent incident occurred on Facility
C when a Southern Hispanic inmate assaulted a Black inmate
during an escort to the medical clinic on the upper yard of
Facility C. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
48.
This incident was assigned log number SATF-03-09-06-0252.
(Id.)
49. On
July 8, 2009, the administration met to discuss this modified
program. (Id. at ¶ 17.)
50. It
was decided to keep the entire Facility C inmate population
on modified program pending the completion of inmate
interviews, searches of the ...