Law v. Blandon et al

Filing 73

ORDER by Judge Nandor Vadas denying 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 56 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

CARLOS GILBERT LAW,
No. C 14-1943 NJV
Plaintiff,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
BLANDON; STAR # 1430; STAR #1342;
STAR #1634; STAR #1991; JOHN and
JANE DOE 1-10 respectively,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND CLOSING
CASE

Defendants.

12

/
13
This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a former detainee at San Francisco
14
County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Deputy Blandon and other persons identified
15
only by "Star" numbers failed to protect him from sexual assault by other inmates, and
16
thereby violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff filed a motion
17
for summary judgment on January 15, 2015. (Doc. 56.) Defendant Blandon filed a motion
18
for summary judgment on February 23, 2015. (Doc. 68.) Plaintiff has not filed an
19
opposition to Defendant Blandon's motion, despite Defendant Blandon filing a notice of
20
Plaintiff’s failure to oppose his motion on March 27, 2015, and providing a certificate of
21
service of that notice on Plaintiff. (Doc. 72.) The court has reviewed Defendant Blandon’s
22
motion and for the reasons set forth below, Defendant Blandon’s motion for summary
23
judgment is granted and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
24
DISCUSSION
25
Complaint
26
Plaintiff states that his jail records indicated and he also told all defendants that he
27
had a history of being a victim of inmate violence due to accusations of being a snitch, a
28
sex offender, and gay. Plaintiff alleges that defendants had seen Plaintiff's classification

1

records. Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in general population and was sexually

2

assaulted by other inmates between March 19, 2014, and March 24, 2014. Amended

3

Complaint at 1. (Doc. 22.)

4

Motion for Summary Judgment

5

A.

Standard of Review

6

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may

9

affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

10

A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury

11
For the Northern District of California

that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

8

United States District Court

7

to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

12

The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

13

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

14

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Nissan

15

Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When the moving

16

party has met this burden of production, the nonmoving party must go beyond the

17

pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there

18

is a genuine issue for trial. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to

19

show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins. Id.

20

Deliberate Indifference to Safety

21

A pretrial detainee is not protected by the Eighth Amendment's proscription against

22

cruel and unusual punishment because he has not been convicted of a crime. See Bell v.

23

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 & n.16 (1979). Pretrial detainees are protected from

24

punishment without due process, however, under the Due Process Clause of the

25

Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746-47 (1987); Bell,

26

441 U.S. at 535-36. The protections of the Due Process Clause are at least as great as

27

those of the Eighth Amendment. See Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244

28
2

1

(1983). In the Ninth Circuit, "deliberate indifference is the level of culpability that pretrial

2

detainees must establish for a violation of their personal security interests under the

3

[F]ourteenth [A]mendment." Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th

4

Cir. 1991) (abrogated on other grounds).

5

B.

6

The court has reviewed Defendant Blandon's motion for summary judgment,

7

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint. The following

8

facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted.

9

Facts

Deputy Blandon is a classification deputy with the San Francisco Sheriff’s
Department. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“ Defendant's MSJ”) at 4. (Doc.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

68.) Deputies in the Classifications Department are responsible for interviewing new

12

prisoners and conducting background checks to determine appropriate housing

13

accommodations. Id. Classifications deputies must assign housing that balances the

14

safety concerns of staff, the new prisoners, and the other prisoners. Id. Classifications

15

deputies must be aware that many prisoners fabricate reasons for protective custody in

16

order to obtain a "single cell," which means they do not have to share a bathroom or have a

17

double bunk. Id.

18

Plaintiff was arrested and brought to the jail on March 18, 2014, and assessed that

19

day by a classification deputy. Id. at 4. However, it was non-defendant Deputy Lozada

20

who conducted the interview and classification process with Plaintiff. Id.; Blandon Decl.,

21

Ex. A. Deputy Lozada determined Plaintiff’s class and housing assignment. Id. at 4.

22

Deputy Blandon is equal in the chain of command with Deputy Lozada and does not have

23

superiority over him. Id. Deputy Blandon did not participate in any part of the

24

classifications process on March 18, 2014. Blandon Decl. ¶ 9.

25

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was sexually assaulted at some point

26

between March 19, 2014, and March 24, 2014. Am. Complaint at 1. (Doc. 22.) Deputy

27

Blandon first learned of plaintiff’s allegation of sexual assault during a March 29, 2014

28
3

1

classification interview, following Plaintiff’s subsequent March 28, 2014 arrest. Defendant's

2

MSJ at 4. (Doc. 68.) Deputy Blandon is familiar with Plaintiff. Since June 2012, Plaintiff

3

has been processed through classification interviews at least sixteen times, and Deputy

4

Blandon has performed classification interviews with him on at least four occasions.

5

Blandon Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff has claimed to need protective custody for being a confidential

6

informant, snitch, victim of sexual assault, and in need of protective custody from gangs

7

and people whom he cannot name but whose faces he knows. Id. ¶ 6. On March 18,

8

2014, Plaintiff’s classification records indicated that he had been in general population in

9

San Francisco County Jail custody on four previous occasions, all without incident. Id. ¶ 7.
C.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Analysis

As noted above, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant Blandon’s motion

12

for summary judgment and has failed to address the arguments and factual assertions in

13

the motion. It is undisputed that Deputy Blandon did not conduct the classification interview

14

that took place immediately prior to the period in which plaintiff claims he was assaulted,

15

between March 19 and March 24, 2014. Deputy Blandon conducted the classification

16

interview with Plaintiff on March 28, 2014, after the assault allegedly occurred. Non-

17

defendant Deputy Lozada conducted the classification interview immediately prior to the

18

incident, and Deputy Blandon was not involved. Further, there is no evidence that Deputy

19

Blandon had knowledge of the classification interview or had the opportunity or authority to

20

intercede in Deputy Lozada’s decision. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff states that at

21

some point he told Deputy Blandon he was in danger. However, Plaintiff does not state

22

when he made this statement or even if it occurred before the assault. These general

23

statements cannot defeat summary judgment. See, e.g., Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

24

1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (conclusory allegations, unsupported by evidence are insufficient to

25

defeat a motion for summary judgment); see also Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281

26

F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (no “genuine issue” of fact if only evidence presented is the

27

“uncorroborated and self-serving” testimony of the opposing party). Therefore, summary

28
4

1

judgment is granted for Deputy Blandon.1

2

Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment because his motion merely presents a

3

summary of his claim and fails to show that there is no dispute as to any material fact and

4

that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2

5
6
7
8
9

CONCLUSION
1. Defendant Blandon’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 68) is
GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 56) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel is (Docket No. 39) is DENIED because this case has been

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

closed.

12

3. The Clerk shall close the file.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: May 1, 2015.
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

Because the court has granted summary judgment to the defendant on the underlying
claim, the qualified immunity argument will not be addressed.
2

26
27
28

Plaintiff has named other defendants, namely deputies identified only as Star #1430,
Star #1342, Star 31634, and Star 31991. Although discovery has been open in this case since
October 24, 2014, Plaintiff has never sought to amend his complaint to identify these persons
by name. They thus were never been served, have not appeared, and never became parties
to this action.
5

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
EUREKA DIVISION
5
6
7
CARLOS GILBERT LAW,

No. 14-CV-01943 NJV

8
Plaintiff,
9
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
BLANDON; STAR # 1430; STAR #1342;
STAR #1634; STAR #1991;
JOHN and JANE DOE 1-10 respectively

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on May 1, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy of

16

the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed

17

below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

18
19
20
21

Carlos Gilbert Law
169 6th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

22
23
24
25
____________________________________

26

Linn Van Meter
Administrative Law Clerk to
the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

27
28
6