Garnier v. Fisher et al

Filing 14

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/7/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2009)

1 2 3 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DONALD FISHER, et al., ) ) Defendants. _________________________________ ) No. C 08-2881 CW (PR)

5 JONAH G. GARNIER, 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff Jonah G. Garnier, a state prisoner currently

12 incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, has filed the present pro se 13 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a 14 violation of his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at 15 Marin County Jail. 17 His motion for leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis has been granted. Venue is proper in this district because the acts complained 18 of occurred while Plaintiff was confined in the Marin County Jail. 19 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(a), 1391(b). 20 21 BACKGROUND According to the allegations in the complaint, on October 18,

22 2007, Plaintiff was placed on suicide watch and put into a "safety 23 garment." (Compl. at 3.) Defendants Deputies Henry McKenzie and 24 Donald Fisher then transported Plaintiff to the Marin General 25 Hospital Emergency Room. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that "throughout 26 the whole duration, from leaving [his] cell to being escorted by 27 two deputies through the public parking lot and crowded public 28 emergency room, as well as during the admittance interviews and

1 examinations, [he] was wearing only a one piece 'Ferrgeson' safety 2 garment." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with

3 any clothing, and the safety garment he was wearing "partially 4 exposed [his] genitals when sitting, and only covered one third of 5 [his] body when standing." (Id.) He alleges that being in public

6 in this partially clothed state caused him "mental/psychological 7 anguish." 8 (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that the failure to provide him with

9 sufficient clothing in a public place over a number of hours 10 amounted to a "clear violation of [his] Eighth Amendment United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 constitutional rights." 13 Defendants: 14 Department. 15 16 I. 17 Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any (Id., Inmate Grievance Form at 1.) In 12 addition to Defendants McKenzie and Fisher, he names the following the Marin County Jail and the Marin County Sheriff's He seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. DISCUSSION

18 case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 19 or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 20 § 1915A(a). See 28 U.S.C.

In its review, the court must identify cognizable

21 claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail 22 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 23 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 24 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 25 construed. 27 28 2 See id.

Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

26 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

1 allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 2 Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 3 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 4 under the color of state law. 5 (1988). 6 II. 7 8 Legal Claims A. Injunctive Relief Claims See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

Plaintiff seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

9 However, he is no longer incarcerated at Marin County Jail, where 10 the alleged violations took place. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 Article III of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the federal 11 courts depends on the existence of a "case or controversy" under Pub. Utils. Comm'n of State of A claim is 13 Cal. v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996).

14 considered moot if it has lost its character as a present, live 15 controversy, and if no effective relief can be granted: "Where the 16 question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by developments 17 subsequent to filing of the complaint, no justiciable controversy 18 is presented." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968). Where 19 injunctive relief is involved, questions of mootness are determined 20 in light of the present circumstances. 21 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 When an inmate has been transferred to another prison and 23 there is no reasonable expectation nor demonstrated probability 24 that he will again be subjected to the prison conditions from which 25 he seeks injunctive relief, the claim for injunctive relief should 26 be dismissed as moot. 27 (9th Cir. 1995). 28 3 See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75

A claim that the inmate might be re-transferred

1 to the prison where the injury occurred is too speculative to 2 overcome mootness. 3 Id.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges unconstitutional conditions of

4 confinement during the period of his confinement at Marin County 5 Jail. He sought injunctive relief to remedy these alleged On June 2, 2008, the date he filed his complaint,

6 injuries.

7 Plaintiff informed the Court he had been transferred to Napa State 8 Hospital. He has since been transferred to San Quentin State Because Plaintiff has not

9 Prison and then to Avenal State Prison.

10 been incarcerated at Marin County Jail since at least June, 2008, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 his claims for injunctive relief from the conditions of his 12 confinement there are DISMISSED as moot. 13 Plaintiff's remaining claims for damages. 14 15 B. Eighth Amendment Claim The Court reviews

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions

16 under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth 17 Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993).1 The 18 Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials, who must 19 provide all prisoners with the basic necessities of life such as 20 food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal 21 safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1970); DeShaney 22 v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 23 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). 24 25 26 27 28 If Plaintiff was initially confined at the Marin County Jail and is now in prison, he may have been a pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged constitutional violations. When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement, the proper inquiry is whether the conditions amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979).
1

4

1

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two

2 requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, 3 objectively, sufficiently serious, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 4 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the 5 prison official must possess a sufficiently culpable state of mind, 6 see id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). 7 In determining whether a deprivation of a basic necessity is

8 sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of an 9 Eighth Amendment claim, a court must consider the circumstances, 10 nature, and duration of the deprivation. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 the shorter the time it can be withheld. 12 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 In prison-conditions cases, the necessary state of mind is one See, e.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 14 of "deliberate indifference." The more basic the need, See Johnson v. Lewis, 217

15 A prison employee is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a 16 prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards 17 that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. 18 837. 19 Liberally construed, Plaintiff's allegations present a 20 cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to 21 his basic life necessities against Defendants Fisher and McKenzie.2 22 23 C. Municipal Liability Claim Id. at

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Fisher informed him that the (Compl. at 2.)

24 use of the "safety garment" was "per our policy." 25 26 27 28

Even if Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged violations, the Court would have also found that his allegations against Defendants Fisher and McKenzie present a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2

5

1 Plaintiff also alleges that the second level review of his inmate 2 grievance stated, "All Marin County Jail policies were followed." 3 (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff claims that the use of the "safety

4 garment" and the failure to provide him with sufficient clothing in 5 a public place over a number of hours was sanctioned by the 6 policies and practices of the Marin County Sheriff's Department or 7 the Marin County Jail. Local governments are "persons" subject to

8 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom 9 causes a constitutional tort, see Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 10 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); however, a city or county may not be held United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees 12 under the theory of respondeat superior, see Board of County 13 Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell, 436 U.S. at 14 691; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of 16 constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the 17 plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was 18 deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this 19 policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's 20 constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force 21 behind the constitutional violation. 23 See Plumeau v. School Dist. 22 No. 40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Liberally construed, Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to 24 state a cognizable municipal liability claim against the Marin 25 County Sheriff's Department or the Marin County Jail. See 26 Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir. 27 2002) (holding that it is improper to dismiss on the pleadings 28 alone a § 1983 complaint alleging municipal liability even if claim 6

1 is based on nothing more than bare allegation that individual 2 employee's conduct conformed to official policy, conduct or 3 practice); accord Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics 4 Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168-69 (1993) 5 (allegations of municipal liability do not require heightened 6 pleading standard). 7 8 9 10 moot. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 2. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim 12 against Defendants Fisher and McKenzie for deliberate indifference 13 to his basic life necessities. 14 3. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable municipal liability 15 claim against the Marin County Sheriff's Department and the Marin 16 County Jail. 17 4. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and 18 Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver 19 of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint and all attachments 20 thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to: the Marin 21 County Sheriff's Department and the Marin County Jail as well as 22 Deputies Donald Fisher and Henry McKenzie of the Marin County 23 Sheriff's Department. 25 Counsel's Office. 27 The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a 24 copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order to the Marin County Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of 26 this Order to Plaintiff. 5. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules 28 of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary 7 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are DISMISSED as

1 costs of service of the summons and complaint.

Pursuant to Rule 4,

2 if Defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the 3 Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, 4 fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such 5 service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and 6 return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will

7 proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that the 8 waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), 9 Defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before 10 sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required Defendants are asked 12 if formal service of summons is necessary.)

13 to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that 14 more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to 15 waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after the 16 date provided in the Notice but before Defendants have been 17 personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the 18 date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days 19 from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 20 6. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with The following briefing 21 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23

22 schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date their 24 answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment 25 or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by 26 adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If Defendants are of the 28 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they 8

1 shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment 2 motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly

3 served on Plaintiff. 4 b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion

5 shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later 6 than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is 7 filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should

8 be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion: 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted [in favor of the defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence

9

1 showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element 2 of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the

3 burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared 4 to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files 5 his opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. Such evidence

6 may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to 7 the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn 8 declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

9 simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall 11 do so no later than thirty (30) days after the date Plaintiff's 12 opposition is filed. 13 d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date No hearing will be held on the motion 14 the reply brief is due. 16

15 unless the Court so orders at a later date. 7. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with Leave of the Court pursuant 17 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

18 to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose 19 Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison. 20 8. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be 21 served on Defendants, or Defendants' counsel once counsel has been 22 designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants or 23 Defendants' counsel. 24 9. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. 25 Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and 26 must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 27 10. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable Any motion for an extension of time 10 28 extensions will be granted.

1 must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline 2 sought to be extended. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

4 DATED: 7/7/09 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.08\Garnier2881.service.frm

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v. DONALD FISHER et al, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JONAH GABRIEL GARNIER, Plaintiff,

Case Number: CV08-02881 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

/

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 11 That on July 7, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 12 copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 13 located in the Clerk's office. 14 15 Jonah Gabriel Garnier G 29257 16 Avenal State Prison P.O. Box 9 17 Avenal, CA 93204 18 Dated: July 7, 2009 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.08\Garnier2881.service.frm

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

12