Alvarez-Mejia v. CDC Director

Filing 38

ORDER, signed by District Judge G. Murray Snow on 8/10/09: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 33 is GRANTED; The Clerk of Court is to TERMINATE this action. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 D . CANO, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P e n d in g before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant D. Cano. (D k t. # 33.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jesus Alvarez Mejia is a former inmate of California State Prison Corcoran (" C O R " ). Defendant D. Cano was a Correctional Counselor I ("CCI") in the Administrative S e g re g a tio n Unit at COR during all times relevant to this matter. On April 1, 2004, there was a riot at COR between White and Southern Hispanic inmates. Prior to the riot, Plaintiff was in the process of preparing a habeas corpus petition with the help of another inmate. In her declaration, Defendant states that shortly after the riot, she "was given a list of in m a te s who were believed to be involved in or were in the vicinity of the riot, and prepared th o s e inmates's [sic] files for [Institutional Classification Committee ("ICC")] review." (D k t. # 33 Pt. 3 at 2.) The ICC makes decisions regarding inmate placements. Defendant vs. J E S U S ALVAREZ MEJIA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o . 1:05-cv-0545-PHX-GMS ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a f f irm s that she "was not involved in investigating or determining who was involved" in the rio t and her involvement in the ICC's decisions "was limited to pulling the inmate's central f ile (C-file), ensuring the paperwork was in order, and recommending to transfer an inmate w h o meets the criteria provided to [her]." (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff never informed Defendant th a t he was in the process of filing a habeas corpus petition. On April 8, 2004, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation because he was p h ys ic a ll y present in the area of the riot and was suspected of being a participant. In her d e c la ra tio n , Defendant states that she did not order or place Plaintiff "in administrative s e g re g a tio n on April 8, 2004, nor was [she] involved in that decision." (Id.) Plaintiff does n o t dispute this fact. On April 19, 2004, Plaintiff appeared before the ICC, which decided to extend his detention in administrative segregation pending the prison's investigation into h i s involvement in the riot because he presented "a threat to the safety and security of the institu tio n ." (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 4 at 16.) On June 6, 2004, Plaintiff was cleared of involvement in the riot and the charge of " P a rtic ip a tio n In A Riot" was dismissed. (Dkt. # 11 at 11.) However, on July 1, 2004, the IC C continued Plaintiff's detention in administrative segregation "pending [Classification S taf f Representative ("CSR")] review for transfer" because of concerns for Plaintiff's safety d u e to the "continued racial tension" in the general prison population concerning the riot. (D k t. # 33 Pt. 4 at 18.) Plaintiff does not dispute these facts. Defendant's declaration states that she "was not involved in the committee's decision to keep [Plaintiff] in administrative segregation pending his transfer to another facility," nor w a s she "involved in the committee's decision to transfer [Plaintiff] to another institution" a n d "[a]s a CCI, [she] did not have the authority to order the transfer of an inmate to another f a c ility." (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 3 at 2.) Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to suggest these s ta te m e n ts are inaccurate. In July 2004, Plaintiff filed a 602 Inmate Appeal requesting that he be released from a d m i n is tra tiv e segregation. Defendant provided the informal response and denied the 602

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In m a te Appeal based on the July 1, 2004 decision of the ICC. (Dkt. # 11 at 5 ("[P]er ICC 7 - 1 -0 4 [Plaintiff is] to remain in [administrative segregation] pending transfer.").) On S e p te m b e r 15, 2004, Plaintiff again appeared before the ICC, which "rescind[ed] 7-1-04 tra n sf e r recommendation due to Annual Review" and continued Plaintiff's detention in a d m i n is tra tiv e segregation pending his review. (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 4 at 19.) On October 20, 2004, P lain tiff received his annual review before the CSR who approved Plaintiff's transfer to a n o th e r institution and also approved "[r]etention in [administrative segregation]" pending th e transfer. (Id. at 20.) On November 1, 2004, Plaintiff was transferred to the California C o rre c tio n a l Center ("CCC"). At the time of Plaintiff's transfer, the statute of limitations for h is habeas petition had not yet run. Plaintiff did not request an extension for time to file his p e titio n , nor did he include an explanation for its untimeliness when the petition was actually f ile d . On June 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint against Defendant D. Cano a ss e rtin g claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. # 11.) Defendant moved for summary ju d g m e n t on April 6, 2009. (Dkt. # 33.) D IS C U S S IO N I. S t a n d a r d of Review A party seeking summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of in f o rm in g the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [ th e record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." C e lo tex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the e v id e n c e, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows "that there is no g e n u in e issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter o f law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the s u it will preclude the entry of summary judgment, and the disputed evidence must be "such th a t a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty L o b b y , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II .

A n a ly sis Plaintiff alleges two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) that he was detained in

a d m in i str a tiv e segregation for a prolonged time period and subsequently transferred to a n o th e r correctional institution because of his race, and (2) that he was denied access to the courts as a result of the discriminatory detention in administrative segregation and subsequent tra n sf e r. (Dkt. # 11.) Plaintiff contends that his prolonged detention in administrative s e g re g a tio n and his transfer caused him to lose his right to file his habeas corpus petition due to untimeliness. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff claims his petition paperwork was lost when he was tra n sf e rre d because another inmate at COR who was helping Plaintiff with his petition had p o s s e s s io n of Plaintiff's documents. (Id.) When Plaintiff was transferred, he was allegedly u n a b le to file his petition on his own because he does not read or write English proficiently a n d did not possess his documents. (Id.) Defendant argues that she is not liable for the a lleg e d constitutional violations because she did not place or detain Defendant in a d m i n is tra tiv e segregation or transfer him to another institution, nor did she have the a u th o rity to release Plaintiff from administrative segregation or to transfer him to another co rr ectio n al facility. (Dkt. # 33 at 3.) Assuming Plaintiff's constitutional rights were deprived, to prevail on his § 1983 c la im s , Plaintiff "must connect [the] named defendants clearly with [the] claimed denial of h is rights." Woodward v. Subia, No. CIV S-07-498 JAM KJM P., 2008 WL 4196692, at *3 (E .D . Cal. Sept. 11, 2008); see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (ho ld in g that [§] 1983 liability arises only when defendant was a personal participant); J o h n so n v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978) (holding "[n]o liability could attach u n d e r [§] 1983 unless a plaintiff was able to show that the named defendant `personally p a rtic ip a te d ' in the alleged violation of civil rights."). A person may be connected to a c o n stitu tio n a l violation by direct personal participation in the deprivation or by "setting in m o tio n a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would c a u se others to inflict constitutional injury." Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743-44. Direct personal

-4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

p a rtic ip a ti o n includes an affirmative act, participation in another's affirmative act, or an o m is s io n to perform an act that a person is legally required to do that causes the c o n s titu tio n a l deprivation. Id. at 743. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant caused his prolonged detention in administrative s e g r e g a tio n and his transfer, and therefore his untimely habeas corpus petition, because D e f e n d a n t was Plaintiff's counselor, recommended to the ICC actions to be taken against h im , and denied his 602 Inmate Appeal. (Dkt. # 36 at 1-2.) Plaintiff, however fails to p ro d u c e evidence supporting his allegations. Plaintiff merely cites Defendant's declaration (D k t. # 33 Pt. 3 at 1-2) as support for his assertions. (Dkt. # 36 at 2.) However, Defendant's declaration states her involvement "was limited to pulling the in m a te' s central file (C-file), ensuring the paperwork was in order, and recommending to tra n s f e r an inmate who meets the criteria provided to [Defendant]." (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 3 at 1-2.) D e f e n d a n t states she was "given a list of inmates who were believed to be involved in or w e re in the vicinity of the riot" and she was to recommend these inmates for transfer by p re p a rin g the listed inmates' paperwork for ICC review. (Id.) In her declaration, Defendant sta tes she was not involved in determining which inmates were placed on the list (id.), and th e re f o re suggests she did not have authority to make recommendations for detention or in m a te transfers based on her own personal authority or judgment, but instead, her in v o lv e m e n t and authority in recommending Plaintiff for transfer was limited to processing p a p e rw o rk in compliance with others' investigative findings and recommendations. (See id . (stating Defendant was "not involved in investigating the riot or determining who was in v o lv e d " ).) Plaintiff has provided no evidence to the contrary. Summary judgment is proper for lack of causation when a defendant is found to sim p ly be performing her "ordinary administrative functions" in reliance on another's p e rs o n a l knowledge, investigation, and recommendation. See Holbrook v. Walters. 296 F. A p p 'x 230, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). In Holbrook, a case similar to the one before the Court, p la in tif f alleged his civil rights were violated when he was placed in administrative

-5-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

s e g re g a tio n and transferred to another prison in retaliation for his filing grievances and b e c a u s e of his religious affiliation. Id. at 232. Three of the defendants in Holbrook were m e m b e rs of a Program Review Committee which approved plaintiff's detention in a d m in is tra tiv e custody pending a transfer to a long term segregation unit. Id. Their decision w a s based upon a review of a memorandum provided by "Walters", a prison employee, d e sc rib in g his personal observations, concerns, investigations, and recommendations re g a rd in g the plaintiff, as well as a review of other information. Id. at 231-32. Summary ju d g m e n t was granted in favor of these defendants because their actions demonstrated that th e y did nothing "other than perform their ordinary administrative functions in reliance on W a lte r' s memorandum," and therefore they were not the cause of any alleged violations. Id. a t 233. In this case, Defendant was similarly acting in reliance of others' investigation and in f o rm a tio n she was provided. (See Dkt. # 33 Pt. 3 at 1-2.) Plaintiff has not provided any e v id e n c e to suggest that Defendant had the authority to disregard the list of inmates she was g iv e n or that she exercised her own judgment and authority in making recommendations to the ICC for inmate detention or transfer. Defendant asserts in her declaration that she did not place Plaintiff in administrative s e g re g a tio n and was not involved in the decisions of the ICC to extend Plaintiff's detention in administrative segregation or the decisions to transfer Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff has p ro v id e d his denied 602 Inmate Appeal requesting that he be released from administrative s e g re g a tio n as evidence that Defendant is responsible for his detention because she signed th e denial. (Dkt. # 11 at 5.) However, the 602 Inmate Appeal states the request was denied " p e r ICC 7-1-04" (id.), and Plaintiff has presented no evidence showing that Defendant was in v o lv e d in the decision made by the ICC or that Defendant had authority to override the IC C 's decision.1 Plaintiff presents no evidence to show Defendant committed an affirmative a c t or participated in another's affirmative act, other than signing the denial of the 602

In her declaration, Defendant denies having authority to override the ICC's decision. (D k t. # 33 Pt. 3 at 2.) -6-

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In m a te Appeal and processing paperwork for the ICC hearing. (Id.; Dkt. # 33 Pt. 3 at 1-2.) T h e se actions are not sufficient to establish a causal connection between the alleged c o n s titu tio n a l injuries and Defendant. See Ornelas v. Giurbino, 358 F. Supp. 2d 955, 973 (S .D . Cal. 2005) (holding that the granting of a motion to dismiss was proper for lack of p erso n al involvement by a defendant who had denied plaintiff's 602 Inmate Appeal).2 A d d itio n a lly, Plaintiff states several times that Defendant may not be at fault for his d e ten tio n in administrative segregation and his untimely filing of his habeas petition. (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 2 at 1, 3; Dkt. # 36 at 1; Dkt. # 33 Pt. 4 at 13 (Plaintiff states in his deposition that h e doesn't "know if she's responsible or not" and "I do not know who did it.").) He does not d is p u te that he was originally placed in administrative segregation because he was suspected o f being a participant in a prison riot. (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 2 at 1; Dkt. # 36 at 1.) He does not d is p u te that Defendant was not involved in his initial placement in administrative s e g re g a t io n . (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 2 at 2; Dkt. # 36 at 1.) Nor does he dispute that after he was c le a re d of riot involvement the ICC decided to continue his placement in administrative s e g r e g a tio n and transfer him to another facility for his own safety and the security of the p riso n because of continued racial tensions at the prison surrounding the riot.3 (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 2 at 2; Dkt. # 36 at 1.) He does not dispute that he was detained in administrative segregation p e n d i n g his annual review, after which he "was kept in administrative segregation because th e CSR approved [Plaintiff's] transfer to another institution" and that Defendant was not in v o lv e d in this decision to transfer Plaintiff. (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 2 at 3; Dkt. # 36 at 1.) Plaintiff T h e plaintiff in Ornelas filed a 602 Inmate Appeal complaining of sexual misconduct b y a prison official. 358 F. Supp. 2d at 973. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant that d e n ie d his 602 Inmate Appeal (Stokes) "failed to protect him from harm from staff members" a n d "denied [p]laintiff his due process rights when he failed to take appropriate action in [ th e ] matter and denied the 602 Inmate appeal that went before him." Id. The court held the d e n ia l of the 602 Inmate Appeal alleging sexual misconduct did not show there was any p e rs o n a l involvement by Stokes in the alleged sexual misconduct and dismissed the claims a g a in s t him. Id. Plaintiff states in his deposition that his safety was threatened because of his p e rc e iv e d involvement in the riot. (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 4 at 8.) -73 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a lso admits in his deposition that he "does not know if she's [Defendant] responsible or not" f o r hindering Plaintiff from filing his habeas corpus petition and that he does not know who v iolated his constitutional rights. (Dkt. # 33 Pt. 4 at 13.) Based upon the evidence, no reasonable jury could find the requisite causal connection b e tw e e n Defendant and the constitutional violations alleged. Summary judgment cannot be d e f e a te d without affidavits or other evidence to support Plaintiff's allegations. See Taylor, 8 8 0 F.2d at 1045-46 (holding summary judgment was properly granted due to a defendant's la c k of personal participation in a § 1983 denial of access to the courts claim because the p la in tif f merely set forth allegations that the defendant had personally stopped law clerks and la w books from being presented to the plaintiff without presenting affidavits or other ev id en ce to support the allegations). Here, Plaintiff has failed to show through affidavits or o th e r evidence that Defendant was responsible for, or a personal participant in, placing and c o n tin u in g to detain Plaintiff in administrative segregation, transferring him to another f a c ility, or preventing him from filing his habeas petition. CONCLUSION P la in tif f has not presented evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that D e f en d a n t is causally connected to the alleged discriminatory detention and subsequent tr a n s f e r of Plaintiff or that she is causally connected to Plaintiff's alleged denial of access to the courts. Therefore, an essential element of Plaintiff's § 1983 claims is lacking. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ( D k t . # 33) is GRANTED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to TERMINATE this a c ti o n . D A T E D this 10th day of August, 2009.

-8-