Marroquin v. Fernandez-Carr et al

Filing 101

ORDER re: 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Unknown Cosby, Yolanda Fernandez-Carr, James Giovino, P Kelly, Kyle Prince, E Burnett. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 7/9/2019. (DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Armando A. Marroquin,

10
11
12

No. CV16-01667-PHX-DGC (BSB)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Yolanda Fernandez-Carr, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Armando A. Marroquin brought this civil rights action pursuant to

16

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 14. On March 4, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in

17

favor of Defendants on all claims except Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims in Counts

18

5 and 6. See Doc. 93 at 22. The Court did not rule on whether Plaintiff was entitled to

19

compensatory and punitive damages, and will now deny Defendants’ motion as to those

20

damages claims.

21

Defendants’ memorandum on setting trial cites their summary judgment motion and

22

reasserts that Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory damages for mental and emotional

23

injuries because he has not alleged and cannot show a compensable physical injury.

24

Docs. 96 at 4; 78 at 18-19. Prisoner litigants cannot recover damages “for mental or

25

emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42

26

U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The prior physical injury “need not be significant but must be more

27

than de minimis.” Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002); Grenning v. Miller-

28

Stout, 739 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014) (clarifying that “Section 1997e(e) applies only

1

to claims for mental and emotional injury”); see also Preayer v. Ryan, No. CV-15-00069-

2

PHX-DGC, 2017 WL 2351601, at *1-*5 (D. Ariz. May 31, 2017) (discussing Oliver and

3

its application among courts).

4

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied toilet paper, disinfectant, shampoo, soap,

5

deodorant, and all means to clean his cell floor, sink, and toilet for six months. Doc. 14 at

6

12-13. He alleged under “Injury” that Defendants subjected him to inhumane conditions,

7

a substantial risk of serious harm, and physical, psychological, and emotional torture for

8

six months. Id. To the extent Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for mental and

9

emotional injuries, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged he suffered a prior

10

physical injury from the six-month deprivation of basic cell-cleaning and hygienic supplies

11

to care for his physical well-being and immediate environment.

12

Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages. Docs. 96

13

at 4; 78 at 19. “[A] jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a

14

defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or

15

callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 900,

16

807 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]ppressive conduct is [also] a

17

proper predicate for punitive damages under § 1983.” Id. at 809. As the Court held with

18

respect to deliberate indifference, a factfinder could reasonably find that Defendants’

19

withholding of hygiene necessities for six months constituted a reckless or callous

20

indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Doc. 93 at 13-17. The same dispute of

21

fact precludes judgment on Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim.

22
23
24

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment (Doc. 78 at 1819) on Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages is denied.
Dated this 9th day of July, 2019.

25
26
27
28

-2-