Mix v. King

Filing 27

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATION To: Grant Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23 , Fourteen (14) Day Objection Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/6/2015. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 5/26/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ROBERT D. MIX,
Plaintiff,

13

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO:

v.

14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-0823-AWI-MJS

GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AUDREY KING, et al.,
Defendants.

16

(ECF No. 23)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

17
18
19
20 I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

22 rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) The action
23 proceeds

on

Plaintiff’s

First

Amended

Complaint

against

Defendants

King,

24 Cunningham, and Saloum for the violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.
25 (ECF Nos. 8 & 10.)
26

Before the Court is Defendants’ October 17, 2014 motion for summary judgment.

27 (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 25.) and Defendants replied (ECF
28 No. 26.). The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

1

II.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Any party may move for summary judgment, and “[t]he [C]ourt 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). 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 absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that
an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed R. Civ.
P. 56(c)(1).

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

“Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the
movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other
than for the moving party.” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th
Cir. 2007). If the burden of proof at trial rests with the nonmoving party, then the
moving party need only point to “an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving
party’s case.” Id. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must
point to "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)).

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In evaluating the evidence, “the [C]ourt does not make credibility determinations
or weigh conflicting evidence,” and “it draws all inferences in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party.” Id.
III.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 27, 2013, Mr. Jackson, a fellow civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital

(“CSH”) assaulted Plaintiff. Plaintiff had not complained to Defendants or staff at CSH
about Mr. Jackson before the attack because he was afraid he would suffer
consequences if he “ratted” on Mr. Jackson. (ECF No. 25 at 2.)

27
28

2

1
2
3
4

Defendant Saloum assessed Mr. Jackson when he first arrived at CSH in
February 2013 and concluded that he did not present a threat to himself or others. On
March 7, 2013 and April 4. 2013, a team of mental health professionals also assessed
Mr. Jackson and concluded that he was a low threat to himself and others.

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff contends that sometime before the attack, Defendant Cunningham asked
Plaintiff whether Jackson was threatening him, and, because of fear of Jackson, Plaintiff
responded by denying any threat. Defendant Cunningham asserts that she did not
know of Mr. Jackson bullying Plaintiff prior to the assault. Mr. Jackson was not her
patient.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Another detainee at CSH, Sam Consiglio, submitted a written complaint to
Defendant King in March 2013 regarding an unnamed bully in his unit. According to
Defendant King, she did not become aware of this letter until June 5, 2013, and she did
not learn of the assault on Plaintiff until after it occurred.
IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Failure to Protect

Civil detainees retain greater liberty protections than individuals detained under
criminal process and are “’entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of
confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.’”
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo,
457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982)). Treatment is presumptively punitive when a civil “detainee
is confined in conditions identical to, similar to, or more restrictive” than his criminal
counterparts. Id. at 933.
Plaintiff’s right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected
by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315.
A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing his liberty
interests against the relevant state interests.” Id. at 321. Due process requires that a
civil detainee receive care that is professionally acceptable. Id. A “decision, if made by
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

a professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision
by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually
did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Id. at 323. The professional judgment
standard is an objective standard, and it equates “to that required in ordinary tort cases
for a finding of conscious indifference amounting to gross negligence.” Ammons v.
Washington Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied, 132 S.Ct. 2379 (2012) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
1.

Parties’ Arguments

Defendants argue that Defendants Saloum and Cunningham were not
consciously indifferent or grossly negligent in not taking action with respect to Mr.
Jackson. They assert that Defendant Saloum and the mental health team exercised
professional judgment in determining that Mr. Jackson was not violent and was a low
threat to others. Plaintiff has admitted that he did not feel threatened by Mr. Jackson or
complain to staff prior to the assault. Defendant King had no knowledge of Plaintiff or
Mr. Jackson prior to the incident.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ conclusion that Mr. Jackson was a low threat
contradicts exhibits characterizing him as violent and lacking impulse control.
Defendants know that one’s past history is the best indicator of future conduct.
Additionally, Sam Consiglio’s complaint to Defendant King put her on notice of a threat
prior to the assault.
2.

Analysis

The undisputed evidence demonstrates that none of the Defendants knew, could
predict, or should have anticipated that Mr. Jackson was a threat to Plaintiff or would
attack Plaintiff.

Defendant Saloum and the mental health professional teams

determined that Mr. Jackson presented a low risk for violence. Plaintiff’s opinion to the
contrary based on Mr. Jackson’s prior history and violent acts towards others is
4

1
2
3
4
5
6

insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff is not an expert qualified
to render such opinions before this Court. He has not provided any evidence from a
qualified source to refute Defendants’ evidence that they exercised reasonable
professional judgment in assessing Mr. Jackson.

witness is not testifying as an expert, his opinion testimony is limited to one based on
his perception rather than one based on scientific knowledge).

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Prior to the assault, Plaintiff did not tell any Defendant he felt threatened by Mr.
Jackson or request action be taken to protect him from Mr. Jackson.1 (ECF No. 23-3 at
8-9.) Based on the record before the Court, there is no evidence that Defendants were
aware of, or could or should have been aware of, any threat by Mr. Jackson to Plaintiff's
safety prior to April 27, 2013 or that they failed to provide professionally acceptable care
in that regard.

17

V.

20
21
22
23

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Defendants

liability. Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23.) be GRANTED.

18
19

Accordingly, summary judgment should be GRANTED in favor of

Defendants.

15
16

See Fed. R. Evid. 701 (where a

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Within

fourteen

(14)

days

after

being

served

with

these

Findings

and

Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a
copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

24
25

1

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion suggests he might now want to dispute the evidence

26 that he failed to inform Defendants of Mr. Jackson posing a threat to him. (ECF No. 25 at 2-4.)
Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not inform Defendants. He cannot now create a

27 genuine issue of material fact by arguing the contrary. Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 577
F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th

28 Cir. 1991)).

5

1
2
3
4

and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8

Dated:

May 6, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6