Flowers v. Alameda County Sheriffs et al

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 84 , 85 MOTIONS TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; DISMISSING EXCESSIVE FORCE AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH CLAIMS; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 67 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S )
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________ )

No. C 08-04179 CW (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO
FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
DISMISSING EXCESSIVE FORCE AND
UNREASONABLE SEARCH CLAIMS; GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Docket nos. 67, 84, 85)

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas

12

Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed this civil rights action pursuant

13

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning events that took place when he was

14

in the custody of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department in 2007

15

and 2008.

16

The operative pleading is Plaintiff's third amended complaint

17

(3AC), which was filed on July 2, 2010.

18

Alameda County Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

19

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, together

20

with a motion to file a fourth amended complaint (4AC) and a motion

21

to compel discovery (MTC).

22

Defendants have filed a reply to

Plaintiff's opposition and have opposed Plaintiff's motions.
BACKGROUND

23
24

On May 13, 2011, the

On March 21, 2007, Plaintiff was taken into the custody of the
Alameda County Sheriff's Department and booked into the Santa Rita

25
County Jail (SRCJ).

Through August 3, 2007, he was incarcerated at

26
either SRCJ or the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility (GDDF).

On that

27
date, he was transferred from the custody of the Alameda County
28

Sheriff's Office to the California Department of Corrections and

1

Rehabilitation (CDCR).

2

Following his release from CDCR, Plaintiff was arrested again.

3

He was booked by the Hayward Police Department on May 13, 2008, and

4

transported to SRCJ on May 14, 2008.

5

Plaintiff alleges that during these two periods of

6

incarceration at SRCJ and GDDF, Defendants violated his

7

constitutional rights.

8

reviewed the allegations in the 3AC and ordered that pleading

9

served on Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

By Order filed November 24, 2010, the Court

Specifically, the Court directed Defendants

to respond to the following cognizable claims for relief:
(1) unlawful placement in administrative segregation; (2) mail
tampering; (3) deliberate indifference to safety and denial of
access to the courts; (4) deliberate indifference to serious

13
medical needs; and (5) food tampering.

Plaintiff's excessive force

14
and unreasonable search claims were dismissed because Plaintiff had
15
16
17

not named or linked any Defendants to his allegations; the claims
were dismissed with leave for Plaintiff to move to amend should he
learn the identities of the responsible individuals.

18
19

DISCUSSION
I.

20

Voluntary Dismissal of Claims
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff

21

states he is dismissing voluntarily his claims of unlawful

22

placement in administrative segregation and food tampering.

23

no. 86 at 3.

24

prejudice.

25

II.

26

Docket

Accordingly, these claims are DISMISSED with

Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint
"[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

27

party's written consent or the court's leave."

28

15(a)(2).

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

The district court may exercise its discretion to deny a

2

1

motion for leave to amend where the amendment of the complaint

2

would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad

3

faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay.

4

See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.

5

1994). "[A] district court has broad discretion to grant or deny

6

leave to amend, particularly where the court has already given a

7

plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his complaint to

8

allege federal claims."

9

Cir. 1996).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

A.

Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 347 (9th

Mail Tampering, Safety and Court Access

The allegations in the 3AC and 4AC with respect to Plaintiff's
claims of mail tampering, deliberate indifference to his safety and
denial of access to the courts are substantially the same.

13
Plaintiff has not shown why amendment of these claims should be
14
granted.
15
16
17

B.

Accordingly, leave to amend these claims is DENIED.
Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

In Plaintiff's original complaint, first amended complaint,
second amended complaint and the operative 3AC, his claim of

18

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs is based on

19

allegations of inadequate access to medical care in 2008 for an

20

injury that occurred in 2007, and the failure to comply with

21

medical orders, resulting in him re-injuring himself on August 13,

22

2008 while climbing stairs.

23

Plaintiff's proposed amendment to this claim seeks to add a

24

new allegation of injury from climbing stairs that occurred on

25

September 9, 2008.

26

not allege facts about the September 8, 2008 incident in any of his

27

prior pleadings.

28

Plaintiff, however, does not explain why he did

The Court finds that amendment to add these new allegations to
3

1

Plaintiff's medical claim at this late stage in the proceedings

2

would cause undue prejudice to Defendants and create undue delay of

3

the resolution of this case.

4

claim is DENIED.

Accordingly, leave to amend this

5

C.

Excessive Force and Illegal Search

6

The Court previously found that Plaintiff stated cognizable

7

claims (1) for excessive force, based on his allegations that, on

8

May 14, 2008, he was beaten without cause by unidentified sheriff's

9

deputies, and (2) an unreasonable search, based on his allegations

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

that, on July 28, 2008, he was strip-searched repeatedly without
cause by an unidentified sheriff's deputy.

As noted above,

however, because Plaintiff had not identified any of the deputies
responsible for the above alleged violations, the Court dismissed

13
both claims with leave to move to amend to name the responsible
14
individuals should he discover their identities.
15
16
17

Docket no. 38 at

12:8-14, 14:4-16.
Plaintiff now seeks to amend the 3AC to add Deputies R. Bixby
and M. Menard as Defendants responsible for the use of excessive

18

force and Deputy R. Bartholomew as the Defendant responsible for

19

the unreasonable search.

20

amendments.

21

with respect to these claims, however, the Court finds that

22

granting leave to amend the 3AC to add the new Defendants would be

23

futile because the claims are subject to dismissal as improperly

24

joined.

25

Defendants do not oppose these

In view of the new information Plaintiff has provided

A plaintiff may properly join as many claims as he has against

26

an opposing party.

27

against a single party may be alleged in a single complaint,

28

unrelated claims against different defendants must be alleged in
4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).

While multiple claims

1

separate complaints.

2

Cir. 2007).

3

"any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally,

4

or in the alternative, with respect to or arising out of the same

5

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and

6

occurrences," Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A), and, "any question of

7

law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action,"

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(B).

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Further, parties may be joined as defendants only if

Here, Plaintiff's excessive force and illegal search claims

9
10

See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th

involve Defendants who are identified for the first time in the 4AC
and are not linked to any of Plaintiff's other claims.
Additionally, the claims concern discrete instances of alleged
misconduct that do not arise out of the same transactions or

13
occurrences as the claims at issue in the 3AC.

Consequently, the

14
Court concludes that the excessive force and illegal search claims
15
16
17

are not properly joined in the 3AC.

Therefore, leave to amend

these claims is DENIED, and the claims are DISMISSED without
prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuing them in new and separate

18

complaints.

19

III. Discovery

20

Together with his opposition to the motion for summary

21

judgment Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Additional Discovery"

22

and, in his supplemental opposition to the motion for summary

23

judgment, he claims he requires additional relevant documentation

24

from Defendants to support his opposition.

25

As Defendants have done, the Court construes the discovery-related

26

requests as a motion to compel discovery and a request for

27

additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

28

//
5

Docket nos. 84 & 94.

1

A.

2

Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery of the following documents

Motion to Compel

3

previously requested from Defendants: (1) his booking photos from

4

May 13 and 14, 2008, from both SRCJ and the Hayward Police

5

Department; (2) photos related to discovery documents numbers

6

ACSO000706 and ACSO000703, which pertain to injuries suffered by

7

Plaintiff at SRCJ on August 12 and September 9, 2008; (3) the

8

legible or typed names of medical staff at Prison Health Services

9

who produced medical progress reports on June 17 and 19, 2008; and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(4) the name of an Asian deputy sheriff working when Plaintiff was
booked at the Hayward Police Department.
Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion on the ground they have

12

complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by producing
13
those documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests that are in
14
their "possession, custody or control," see Fed. R. Civ. P.
15
16
17

34(a)(1), and also by fulfilling their obligation to conduct a
reasonable inquiry into the location of the documents requested.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g).

In support of their opposition,

18

Defendants submit the declaration of their counsel of record,

19

Associate County Counsel Manuel Martinez, and attached exhibits

20

comprised of Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's discovery

21

requests.

22

County Counsel Audrey Beaman and Kelly Martinez, the Civil

23

Litigation Manager for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, all

24

of whom have sworn, under penalty of perjury, that they have

25

searched for, and provided Plaintiff with, all documents, photos

26

and other information in their possession, custody or control that

27

might be responsive to his requests.

28

1-7.

The responses have been verified by Martinez, Deputy

6

See Martinez Decl. & Exs.

1

By contrast, Plaintiff's contention that, despite the

2

representations noted above, Defendants have not searched

3

diligently enough to find the discovery he seeks, are speculative

4

and unsupported by the record.

5

compel is DENIED.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to

6

B.

Additional Discovery

7

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a

8

party to avoid summary judgment when such party has not had

9

sufficient opportunity to discover affirmative evidence necessary

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

to oppose the motion.

See Garrett v. San Francisco, 818 F. 2d

1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987).1

In particular, Rule 56(d) provides

that a court may deny a summary judgment motion and permit the
opposing party to conduct discovery where it appears that the

13
opposing party, in the absence of such discovery, is unable to
14
present facts essential to opposing the motion.
15
16
17

Here, Plaintiff has had adequate opportunity to conduct
discovery to seek facts to oppose the claims at issue in the motion
for summary judgment, and he acknowledges in his opposition to the

18

motion for summary judgment that he has received more than 1,500

19

discovery responses from Defendants.

20

additional discovery under Rule 56(d) is DENIED.

21

IV.

Accordingly, the request for

Motion for Summary Judgment

22

A.

23

Summary judgment is only proper where the pleadings, discovery

Legal Standard

24

and affidavits show there is "no genuine issue as to any material

25

fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

26
27
28

1

Garrett cites Rule 56(f), the subsection in which this
provision formerly was set forth; as of December 1, 2010, the
applicable provision is Rule 56(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
7

1

of law."

2

affect the outcome of the case.

3

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

4

genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return

5

a verdict for the nonmoving party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Material facts are those that may
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

A dispute as to a material fact is

Id.

6

The court will grant summary judgment "against a party who

7

fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

8

element essential to that party's case, and on which that party

9

will bear the burden of proof at trial."

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248
(holding fact to be material if it might affect outcome of suit
under governing law).

The moving party bears the initial burden of

identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the
13
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

The burden then

14
shifts to the nonmoving party to "go beyond the pleadings, and by
15
16
17
18

his own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to
interrogatories, or admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'"

Celotex, 477

U.S. at 324 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

19

In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must

20

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

21

party; if, as to any given fact, evidence produced by the moving

22

party conflicts with evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the

23

court must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the

24

nonmoving party with respect to that fact.

25

ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999).

26

a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility determinations

27

or weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a disputed material

28

fact.

See Leslie v. Grupo
The court's function on

See T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809
8

1

F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

2

B.

Mail Tampering

3

Plaintiff alleges a single incident of purported mail

4

tampering that occurred on August 2, 2007, the day he was

5

transferred from GDDF to SRCJ.

6

that prior to the transfer he handed to mailroom personnel two

7

legal mail packages, each of which contained documents concerning

8

his "writ."

9

County Superior Court and the District Attorney's Office.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

The packages were addressed to the Alameda
Id.

The following day, Plaintiff was transferred to state prison.

10
11

3AC at 2.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges

Martinez Decl. ¶ 23.

When, after sixty days, he had not heard back

from the Superior Court, he sent a notice regarding lost mail to
GDDF.

On or about October 22, 2007, Plaintiff received the

13
documents in question, which had been forwarded from GDDF as "Lost
14
Mail."
15
16
17

3AC at 2.

He noticed that the documents were misplaced and

not in their original envelopes.

Id.

He claims that as a result

of the mishandling of his mail the "[j]udges rulings were effected"
in his case.

Id.

He brings this claim against Sheriff Ahern, who

18

he claims is responsible for implementing the mail policy and

19

procedures that resulted in the mishandling of his mail.

20

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive

21

mail.

22

Nonetheless, prison officials may institute procedures for

23

inspecting legal mail, which includes mail sent between attorneys

24

and prisoners, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974),

25

and mail sent from prisoners to the courts, see Royse v. Superior

26

Court, 779 F.2d 573, 574-75 (9th Cir. 1986).

27

delay of legal mail which adversely affects legal proceedings

28

presents a cognizable claim for denial of access to the courts, see
9

Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995).

While the deliberate

1

Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1986), isolated

2

incidents of mail interference without any evidence of improper

3

motive or resulting interference with the right to counsel or

4

access to the courts do not give rise to a constitutional

5

violation.

6

1990); Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367, 1370-71 (2d Cir. 1975);

7

Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 1974).

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir.

Here, on the undisputed evidence presented by the parties, a
First Amendment violation is not shown.

This was an isolated

incident of mail mishandling; there is no evidence that the
mishandling was based on the content of the mail or was purposeful.
Moreover, Plaintiff's conclusory assertion that the ruling in his
Superior Court case was affected by the mishandling is unsupported

13
and is not probative evidence that the mishandling had a negative
14
impact on any legal proceeding.
15
16
17
18
19

Additionally, Plaintiff's

supervisory liability claim fails because his assertion is that the
mail was not handled in accordance with Sheriff Ahern's written
policy and procedures, and he has offered no evidence that shows
there was a mailroom practice of subverting the policy.
Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED to Sheriff Ahern on

20

this claim.

21

C.

22

Plaintiff alleges that upon arriving at SRCJ after his

Deliberate Indifference to Safety/Denial of Court Access

23

transfer from GDDF on August 2, 2007, he was placed in a cell with

24

two inmates who were dressed in yellow clothing.

25

was in full hand and leg restraints, was wearing red clothing.

26

According to Plaintiff, red clothing indicates an inmate's

27

segregation status, while yellow clothing indicates an inmate is

28

housed on the mainline.

Plaintiff, who

Inmates wearing different colored clothing
10

1

are not to be placed in cells together.

3AC at 3(a).

2

Plaintiff alleges the two inmates took his legal materials,

3

which were hard copies of his criminal appeal and several of his

4

musical compositions, ripped them up and flushed them down the

5

toilet and "physically abused" Plaintiff, who was unable to protect

6

himself.

7

seen [sic] was Deputy Fis[c]her, a female officer; who ignored

8

plaintiff during the attacks; and refused to assist plaintiff while

9

housed in the intack [sic] unit of receiving the 'afternoon time',

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Id.

Plaintiff further alleges that "[p]resent at the

Aug. 2, 2007."
Ahern.

He brings this claim against Fischer and Sheriff

3AC at 3(a)-(b).

In support of the motion for summary judgment, Fischer

12

affirmatively denies, under penalty of perjury, that she either
13
witnessed or was aware of Plaintiff being physically attacked or of
14
anyone destroying or taking his property on August 2, 2007.
15
16
17

Shavies ¶¶ 5-6.2

Decl.

She further denies that she stood idly by while

the alleged attack occurred.

Id. ¶ 7.

Additionally, Defendants

have submitted evidence that the Sheriff's Department possesses no

18

"grievance, information, record or document" that supports

19

Plaintiff's allegations, nor is there any report documenting

20

physical injury to Plaintiff on that date.

21

27.

22

Decl. Martinez ¶¶ 26-

In his declaration in support of his opposition to the motion

23

for summary judgment, Plaintiff states that "Plaintiff recalls

24

Deputy Fischer there and ignored Plaintiff during the morning/noon

25

shift the incidents of Aug 2, 2007.

She walked pass the

26
27
28

2

Deputy Fischer's last name is now Shavies. For convenience
and consistency, she will be referred to as Deputy Fischer herein.
11

1

location/cell several times without assisting Plaintiff, as

2

Plaintiff called."

3

Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 17.

Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials must take

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).

6

officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the

7

hands of other prisoners.

8

1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).

9

protect inmates from attacks by other inmates violates the Eighth

10

Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation

11
For the Northern District of California

reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners.

5

United States District Court

4

alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison

12

official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate

13

safety.

14

Farmer

In particular, prison

Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d
The failure of prison officials to

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040-41.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that creates a

15

genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether Fischer

16

acted with deliberate indifference to his safety.

17

Fischer affirmatively denies that she was aware of the alleged

18

incident or failed to come to Plaintiff's aid, and also has shown

19

that the Sheriff's Department possesses no record of the incident.

20

In response, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that refutes

21

Fischer's.

22

inmates, without providing any further detail about the assault or

23

resulting injury, Opp'n at 27-28, and that Fischer walked by the

24

cell several times during the morning/noon shift without responding

25

when "plaintiff called."

26

about what he said when he called or how many times he did so.

27

Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 17.

28

Fischer might have heard Plaintiff calling to her when she walked

Specifically,

Rather, he states only that he was "jumped" by the

He does not provide any further detail

At most, Plaintiff's assertions show that

12

1

by his cell, but did not respond.

Such assertions, however, do not

2

raise a reasonable inference that Fischer knew Plaintiff was being

3

beaten and intentionally failed to act to protect him.

4

Plaintiff has presented no evidence to refute to refute Fischer and

5

Sheriff Ahern's evidence that no record of the incident exists.

6

Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown that, as a result of

Further,

7

either Fischer's or Sheriff Ahern's actions, he was denied access

8

to the courts.

9

the courts.

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996).

To

establish a claim for a violation of this right, the prisoner must

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

prove that he suffered "actual injury" because he was denied such

12

access.

13

that the actions of prison officials hindered his efforts to pursue

14

a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of

15

confinement.

16

evidence to support his assertion that either Fischer or Sheriff

17

Ahern's conduct was the cause of the destruction of his legal

18

documents or that he suffered an actual injury to court access as a

19

result of the destruction.

Id. at 350-55.

To prove an actual injury, he must show

See id. at 354-55.

Here, Plaintiff has presented no

20

Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED to Fischer and

21

Sheriff Ahern on Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to safety and

22

denial of court access claims.

23

D.

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

24

Plaintiff alleges that when he was incarcerated at SRCJ,

25

Deputies Jones, Smith, DeLeon, Nelson, Delima, Kull and Valverde

26

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs between

27

May 13, 2008 and August 24, 2008.

28

Sheriff Ahern was responsible for policies that permitted
13

Plaintiff further alleges that

1

indifference to his medical needs through September 2008.

Department on May 13, 2008 and transported to SRCJ the next day.

4

Plaintiff maintains that, from his arrival at SRCJ on May 14, 2008

5

through August 24, 2008, Defendants acted to prevent him from

6

seeking medical treatment for injuries he suffered from the alleged

7

beating by other inmates at SRCJ on August 2, 2007 (discussed

8

above), and from an old gunshot wound to his neck.

9

that the lack of adequate attention to those needs resulted in his

10

re-injuring himself on August 13, 2008, when he was moved through

11
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff was arrested and booked by the Hayward Police

3

United States District Court

2

the jail while in restraints.

He also claims

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs

12
13

violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and

14

unusual punishment.

15

(1976).

16

examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's

17

medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that

18

need.

19

overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104

20

F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

21

deliberately indifferent if he knows a prisoner faces a substantial

22

risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take

23

reasonable steps to abate it.

24

(1994).

25

established, there must exist both a purposeful act or failure to

26

act on the part of the defendant and harm resulting therefrom.

27

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.

28

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992),

A prison official is

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

Consequently, in order for deliberate indifference to be

The Court finds Plaintiff has not presented evidence that
14

See

1

raises a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendants acted with

2

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

3

initial matter, it is undisputed that Defendants are not medical

4

providers.

5

claims knew of his injuries and prevented him from receiving

6

necessary medical care.

7

evidence that supports his assertion.

8

undisputed facts show the following: (1) Plaintiff was medically

9

assessed when he arrived at SRCJ on May 14, 2008, and the only

As an

Rather, they are sheriff's deputies who Plaintiff

Plaintiff, however, has not presented
In particular, the

injuries noted were a wrist abrasion three to four days old and an

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

old gunshot wound to the neck, which he states he suffered in 1987;

12

(2) deputy sheriffs escorted him to sick call on May 20, 27 and 30,

13

2008, July 10, 2008, and September 9 and 15, 2008; (3) he had two

14

sets of x-rays taken while at SRCJ -- an x-ray of his right wrist,

15

on May 28, 2008, and of his right wrist and lumbar spine, on

16

September 10, 2008, both of which showed no acute findings; (4) he

17

refused an annual health assessment on May 29, 2008 and

18

acknowledged that he would assume all responsibility for his

19

welfare; (5) he refused to cooperate during physical therapy

20

appointments on June 17, 2008, June 19, 2008 and July 3, 2008;

21

(6) medical staff provided him with pain medication from May 27,

22

2008 to June 3, 2008, and from July 30, 2008 to August 13, 2008.

23

See Decl. Gilbert & Exs. 1-6; Decl. Gober & Ex. 1; Decl. Molloy.

24

Further, Plaintiff claims Defendants did not comply with a

25

medical order for special housing and bunk assignments.

26

Defendants, however, have presented undisputed evidence that

27

Plaintiff never informed the housing unit deputies of that order

28

and, pursuant to Alameda County Jail regulations, it is the
15

1

prisoner's responsibility to inform the housing unit deputy of an

2

order to be placed on the lower tier and lower bunk.

3

Jones ¶ 6-7.

4

Defendants could not have been deliberately indifferent to them.

Decl. P.M.

Without knowledge of Plaintiff's medical needs,

5

Additionally, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that Deputy

6

Jones acted with deliberate indifference when he moved Plaintiff in

7

restraints on August 12, 2008, which, Plaintiff alleges, caused him

8

to fall and re-injure himself.

9

was restrained and not, as Jones wrote in the incident report,

Even if Plaintiff fell because he

because his foot slipped out of his sandal, there is no evidence

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

that Jones knew of a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff and

12

failed to act to prevent such harm.

13

Plaintiff was housed in administrative segregation and all such

14

inmates must be moved in restraints; Plaintiff does not allege that

15

a medical order required that he be excepted from this procedure or

16

that Jones failed to honor such an order.

17

other facts which support the proposition that Jones acted with

18

deliberate indifference.

19

Rather, it is undisputed that

Nor does he allege any

Finally, Plaintiff has not shown supervisory liability for

20

deliberate indifference to his medical needs by Sheriff Ahern.

21

Respondeat superior liability does not exist under 42 U.S.C.

22

§ 1983.

23

supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his

24

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the

25

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

26

them."

27

acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs or

28

that any Sheriff's Department policy resulted in the violation of

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Id.

"A

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that any deputy sheriff

16

1
2
3

his constitutional rights.
Based on the above, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of
Defendants on this claim.

4

E.

Qualified Immunity

5

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

6

The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials

7

. . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct

8

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

9

rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The threshold question in

qualified immunity analysis is: "Taken in the light most favorable

12

to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the

13

officer's conduct violated a constitutional right?"

14

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

15

in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it

16

would be clear to a reasonable defendant that his conduct was

17

unlawful in the situation he confronted.

Saucier v.

The relevant, dispositive inquiry

Id. at 202.

18

On the facts presented herein, viewed in the light most

19

favorable to Plaintiff, Defendants prevail as a matter of law on

20

their qualified immunity defense because the record establishes no

21

constitutional violation.

22

occur, however, Defendants could have reasonably believed their

23

conduct was lawful.

24

tampering claim, it would not have been clear to Sheriff Ahern that

25

his policy for the inspection of legal mail violated the First

26

Amendment because of a single incident of Plaintiff's mail being

27

mishandled.

28

Fischer or Sheriff Ahern that Plaintiff's right to be protected

Even if a constitutional violation did

Specifically, with respect to Plaintiff's mail

Additionally, it would not have been clear to Deputy

17

1

from attack by other inmates was violated based on Plaintiff's bare

2

statement that he called out to Fischer when she passed by his cell

3

but she did not respond.

4

Fischer or Sheriff Ahern that Fischer violated Plaintiff's

5

constitutional right of access to the courts by failing to prevent

6

other inmates from flushing his legal materials down the toilet.

7

Finally, it would not have been clear to those Defendants who are

8

alleged to have prevented Plaintiff from receiving adequate medical

9

care that they were acting with deliberate indifference to his

Further, it would not have been clear to

serious medical needs.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

They escorted him to see medical staff on

numerous occasions, were unaware of a medical order to provide him

12

with certain housing and bunk assignments, and escorted him in

13

restraints when there was no medical order requiring a different

14

procedure.

15

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

16

with respect to all of Plaintiff's claims, and their motion for

17

summary judgment is GRANTED for this reason as well.
CONCLUSION

18
19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

20

1.

21

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended

complaint is DENIED.

22

2.

Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is DENIED.

23

3.

The administrative segregation and food tampering claims

24
25
26

are DISMISSED with prejudice.
4.

The excessive force and illegal search claims are

DISMISSED without prejudice.

27

5.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

28

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the
18

1

file.

All parties shall bear their own costs.

2

This Order terminates Docket nos. 67, 84 and 85.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: 3/27/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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