Ahmed v. Duffy et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/14/2017 OVERRULING 37 Plaintiff's objections to 35 Order discharging the order to show cause. Should the district judge adopt the 31 Findings and Recommendations, defendant will be directed to file and serve an answer to the First Amended Complaint, and this case will then be further scheduled. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAIYEZ AHMED,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1470 AC P

ORDER

BRIAN DUFFY, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison Los Angeles County

17
18

(CSP-LAC). By order filed July 25, 2017, this court discharged an order to show cause (OSC)

19

that had directed defense counsel to determine, in consultation with the CSP-LAC Litigation

20

Coordinator, any adverse impacts to plaintiff due to his participation in the June 9, 2017

21

settlement conference in this case. See ECF No. 35 (discharging OSC). The OSC was issued in

22

response to plaintiff’s allegations that, as a result of his participation in the settlement conference,

23

he had been placed in administrative segregation (Ad Seg) without due process, had lost his job

24

and related compensation, and had missed previously scheduled medical appointments.
Plaintiff objects to the court’s order discharging the OSC, on the ground that counsel’s

25
26

response and the supporting declaration of CSP-LAC Litigation Coordinator D. Sanchez contain

27

factual inaccuracies concerning plaintiff’s Ad Seg placement. See ECF No. 37. Counsel has

28

////
1

1

responded to plaintiff’s objections. See ECF No. 38. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s

2

objections are overruled.

3

Plaintiff has submitted a copy of the Rules Violation Report (RVR) he received on June

4

16, 2017, for refusing to comply with an order to be moved from CSP-LAC’s D4 “temporary

5

overflow” Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) to the D5 dedicated ASU. See ECF No. 37-1

6

at 4 (Pltf. Ex. 1). Plaintiff avers that this exhibit demonstrates, contrary to the representations of

7

the Deputy Attorney General, that he was placed in Ad Seg upon his return from the settlement

8

conference. Plaintiff further avers that “[t]he only reason Plaintiff was released from Ad-Seg is

9

due to Plaintiff protesting through a Hunger Strike which was started on June 23, 2017 and lasted

10
11

until June 27, 2017, the day Plaintiff was moved to D1-144.” ECF No. 37 at 4.
The DAG filed a Supplemental Response that includes a Supplemental Declaration from

12

CSP-LAC Litigation Coordinator Sanchez. See ECF No. 38. Both concede that their prior

13

response was partially inaccurate. Sanchez explains that in his prior review of plaintiff’s External

14

Movement History Log and Bed Assignment Log, he did not consider plaintiff’s placement in

15

“non-disciplinary Ad-Seg in Building D-4” to reflect dedicated Ad Seg housing because

16

previously “Building D-4 [was] not an Ad-Seg dedicated housing unit” and “inmates are not

17

placed in Ad-Seg when they return from a temporary out-to-court transfer.” ECF No. 38-1,

18

Sanchez Decl. ¶ 6. However, upon further investigation, Sanchez discovered that “Building D-4

19

is currently being utilized as Ad-Seg overflow housing.” Id.

20

Sanchez also discovered that plaintiff’s placement in Ad Seg was purposeful for reasons

21

unrelated to his participation in the settlement conference. On June 13, 2017, following the

22

settlement conference at California State Prison Corcoran (CSP-COR), and plaintiff’s temporary

23

placement there, plaintiff “self-reported to Correctional Staff at COR that he considered himself a

24

sympathizer with the Norteno Security Threat Group II (STG). The [ASU] Placement Notice

25

Ahmed received reflects that . . . COR retained him in non-disciplinary Ad-Seg for his own safety

26

because . . . failing to retain him in non-disciplinary Ad-Seg could subject him to assault by

27

enemies of the STG II Nortenos.” Sanchez Decl., ¶ 5, and Ex. 3 (CSP-COR ASU Placement

28

Notice).
2

1

When plaintiff was returned to CSP-LAC on June 15, 2017, he was “immediately placed

2

in non-disciplinary Ad-Seg in Building D-4 for his own safety based upon the Administrative

3

Segregation Unit Placement Notice Ahmed received at COR. LAC does not house STG II

4

Nortenos so Ahmed was deemed an immediate threat to the safety and security of the institution.”

5

Sanchez Decl., ¶ 6.

6

At CSP-LAC, plaintiff remained housed in Ad Seg from June 15, 1017 to June 27, 2017,

7

when he was cleared of safety and security concerns. Sanchez Decl., ¶ 7. Although plaintiff

8

received an RVR on June 16, 2017, for refusing to move to Building 5, CSP-COR’s dedicated

9

ASU, plaintiff was found not guilty on July 14, 2017. Id., Ex. 4 (CSP-COR Disciplinary Action

10

Log). Plaintiff was moved to CSP-COR’s non-ASU housing on June 27, 2017, where he

11

remains.

12

The undersigned is persuaded by this new information that plaintiff was temporarily

13

placed in CSP-LAC’s ASU due to his own statements at CSP-COR that he was a sympathizer of

14

the Norteno Security Threat Group II. Plaintiff’s placement in CSP-LAC’s overflow ASU upon

15

his return from CSP-COR was consistent with standard CDCR security precautions. The RVR

16

plaintiff incurred due to his subsequent refusal to move to CSP-LAC’s dedicated ASU was

17

resolved in plaintiff’s favor. The arguments and exhibits presented by plaintiff and the DAG

18

demonstrate no evidence of retaliatory motive. The court again finds that plaintiff has suffered no

19

significant adverse action due to his voluntary participation in the court’s settlement program.

20

Accordingly, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections to the court’s prior order

21

discharging the order to show cause, ECF No. 37. The undersigned again acknowledges the

22

assistance of the DAG and CSP-LAC Litigation Coordinator in addressing these matters.

23

The parties are reminded that, should the district judge adopt the undersigned’s pending

24

findings and recommendations, ECF No. 31, defendant will be directed to file and serve an

25

answer to the First Amended Complaint, and this case will then be further scheduled.

26

DATED: August 14, 2017

27
28
3