United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Hon.
Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge
Plaintiff
Dwayne Conyers is a California state prisoner proceeding by
and through counsel with a Fifth Amended Complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Electronic Case File
“ECF” No. 51.) He claims that while in custody of
the San Diego County Sheriff's Department awaiting trial
for a criminal offense, and while hospitalized as a result of
a prescription medication overdose, he was sexually assaulted
and harassed by Defendant San Diego County Sheriff's
Deputy Corporal Michael Roddy. (ECF No. 51-1 at 1-2.)
Currently
pending is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Roddy.
(ECF No. 89.) Defendant contends there is no genuine issue of
material fact in dispute because: (1) the forensic evidence
proves Plaintiff's allegations are false, (2) eyewitness
and expert medical evidence show he was hallucinating and
delusional due to his overdose or mental illness, (3) his
allegation that Defendant entered a continuously monitored
room in a heavily trafficked area of a hospital and assaulted
him unnoticed for 10-15 minutes while he was pressing an
emergency call button is implausible, and (4) Plaintiff lied
to the investigating detectives and has changed his story
multiple times. (Id.)
Plaintiff
opposes summary judgment, arguing the chain of custody of the
forensic evidence is compromised and not all evidence was
tested, and that his sworn deposition testimony raises
genuine issues of material fact. (ECF No. 92.)
Defendant
replies that the chain of custody of the forensic evidence is
intact, all relevant evidence was tested, and Plaintiff's
deposition testimony fails to raise a genuine issue because
it does not refute Defendant's evidence. (ECF No. 93.)
For the
following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Roddy.[1]
I.
Procedural Background
Plaintiff
initiated this action by filing a pro se Complaint
on December 15, 2016 in the Central District of California
naming as Defendants San Diego County Sheriff's Deputy
Corporal Rodriguez, a John Doe Nurse and two John Doe San
Diego County Sheriff's Deputies. (ECF No. 1.) The
Complaint was transferred to this Court on January 19, 2017.
(ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff named the same Defendants in a First
Amended Complaint filed March 30, 2017, and a Second Amended
Complaint filed May 18, 2017. (ECF Nos. 16, 23.)
On
August 18, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff's
appointed counsel filed a Third Amended Complaint on January
19, 2018 (ECF No. 36), and a nearly identical Fourth Amended
Complaint on January 22, 2018. (ECF No. 38.) Those complaints
named as Defendants San Diego County, the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department, and San Diego County Sheriff's
Deputies Michael Roddy and Luciano Rodriguez. (ECF No. 38 at
2.)
On May
25, 2018, the Court granted a motion to dismiss by San Diego
County and the San Diego County Sheriff's Department and
dismissed those Defendants without prejudice and with leave
to amend. (ECF No. 50.) On June 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
Fifth Amended Complaint, the operative pleading in this
action, naming as the sole Defendant San Diego County
Sheriff's Deputy Corporal Michael Roddy.[2] (ECF No. 51.)
Defendant
Roddy filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 20, 2018, which was
denied on September 18, 2019, and filed an Answer on November
2, 2018. (ECF Nos. 56, 60, 62.) He filed the instant Motion
for Summary Judgment on September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 89.)
Plaintiff filed an Opposition on October 24, 2019. (ECF No.
92.) Defendant filed a Reply on November 7, 2019. (ECF No.
93.)
II.
Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff
alleges that on June 24, 2016, while he was in the custody of
the San Diego County Sheriff's Department awaiting trial
in a criminal case in the San Diego County Superior Court, he
was transported to the Tri-Care Medical Center in Oceanside,
California, and admitted for Dilantin poisoning. (ECF No.
51-1 at 1.) At some unidentified time during his
hospitalization:
Defendant Roddy entered Plaintiff's hospital room while
Plaintiff was handcuffed to the bed, and Defendant Roddy then
approached Plaintiff, looked Plaintiff in the eyes, uttered
the racial epithet “nigga”, and said to
Plaintiff, “Shut up, I'll blow your head off”
and “You['d] better do what I say.” [¶]
Immediately after Defendant Roddy issued the aforementioned
verbal orders, Defendant Roddy touched Plaintiff's
buttocks, exposed Defendant Roddy's penis, masturbated
Defendant Roddy's penis, ejaculated onto Plaintiff's
bed sheets, and left Plaintiff's room. By the time that
Defendant Roddy departed Plaintiff's room, Plaintiff
activated an emergency button on the side of his bed.
(Id. at 1-2.)
Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Roddy was acting under color of state law
and within the scope of his employment. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff presents a single count for violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights to privacy and to be free of
sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual battery. (ECF
No. 92 at 3.)
III.
Discussion
Defendant
Roddy seeks summary judgment on the basis that: (1) forensic
testing found no semen on the bedsheet, (2) eyewitness and
expert medical testimony show Plaintiff was hallucinating and
delusional during the alleged events, (3) police reports and
declarations show he provided false information to law
enforcement on the night of the incident and has changed his
story multiple times, and (4) declarations from hospital
staff show such an assault could not have gone unnoticed by
staff because his room was continuously monitored in a
heavily trafficked area of the hospital. (ECF No. 89.)
Plaintiff
opposes summary judgment, contending the chain of custody of
his bedsheets was compromised and there remains a genuine
issue whether Defendant ejaculated on them, and
Plaintiff's deposition testimony is sufficient to raise
genuine issues of material fact because credibility
determinations are not permitted on summary judgment. (ECF
No. 92.)
Defendant
replies that the chain of custody of the bedsheets is intact,
and Plaintiff's contention that unspecified portions of
his deposition testimony raise genuine issues for trial fails
notwithstanding the prohibition on credibility determinations
because his deposition testimony does not refute
Defendant's evidence. (ECF No. 93.)
A.
Legal Standards
Defendant
is entitled to summary judgment if he demonstrates
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party has the initial burden
of showing summary judgment is proper “by showing the
absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.”
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157
(1970). Entry of summary judgment is appropriate
“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient
to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be
‘no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a
complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of
the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other
facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
In
order to avoid summary judgment, the nonmovant must present
“specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The Court may not weigh evidence or
make credibility determinations, and any inferences drawn
from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255. The
nonmovant's evidence need only be such that a “jury
might return a verdict in his favor.” Id. at
257.
B.
Arguments and evidence in support and opposition to summary
judgment 1. Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment
Defendant
Roddy presents a San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Crime/Incident Report by Deputy Sheriff Luciano Rodriguez
stating that he was assigned to the Tri-City Medical Center
Hospital as a Floor Rover/Escort on June 25, 2016. (ECF No.
89-2 at 8-10.) About 6:45 p.m. that evening, Plaintiff, who
was talking rapidly and incoherently, told Deputy Rodriguez
he had been raped by a black corporal earlier that morning.
(Id. at 8.) Deputy Rodriguez reported the rape
allegation to Vista Detention Watch Commander Lieutenant
Ausler and was instructed to obtain further details.
(Id.) About 7:05 p.m. Deputy Rodriguez asked
Plaintiff what happened, and he said: “The big black
corporal came into the room this morning while I was lying in
bed, circled around my bed and threw me down. He penetrated
me and then he cleaned his dick in my bed sheets.”
(Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff took his hospital gown out
of a pillow case where he had hidden it and asked Deputy
Rodriguez to look at his bedsheets but kept showing him the
gown. (Id. at 9.) Deputy Rodriguez stated that
Plaintiff “became very agitated by waving his hands and
the gown and making incoherently [sic] statements that I
could not understand.” (Id.) Deputy Rodriguez
then interviewed Nurse Marek Gorski who stated that Plaintiff
had been in room 303 by himself since his arrival, and room
303 has a live camera feed used to monitor the behavior of
patients and inmates but ...