Miller v. Catlett et al

Filing 102

ORDER overruling objections; ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and granting Defendants' 85 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 01/05/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12

CURTIS E. MILLER,

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
T. CATLETT,
15
Correctional Officer, et. al,
16
Defendants.
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No.08-cv-2428 AJB (PCL)

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS;
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Doc. Nos. 95, 96 and 101]

On October 3, 2011, Judge Lewis filed a Report and Recommendation (hereinafter “R&R”),

19

[Doc. No. 95], containing findings and conclusions, upon which he bases his recommendation that the

20

Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, [Doc. No. 85].

21

Defendants filed a timely objection, [Doc. No. 96], to a portion of the R&R, but move this Court to

22

affirm Judge Lewis’ decision and enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The

23

Plaintiff also filed a timely objection, [Doc. No. 101]. The Court has considered the R&R and the

24

objections filed by the parties and (1) overrules the abjections filed by theobjections filed by the parties;

25

(2) adopts Judge Lewis' recommendations, (3) grants summary judgment terminating this case, and (4)

26

issues a certificate of appealability.

27
28
1

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES all objections made by Defendants and

2

Plaintiff, and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’

3

Motion for Summary Judgment.

4

Background

5

Plaintiff’s narrative begins on the morning of May 30, 2007 after a black prisoner assaulted

6

Defendant A. Amat, a correctional officer, in housing unit B4 at Calipatria State Prison resulting in

7

facility B being placed on lockdown. [Doc. No. 30, at 3]. Plaintiff states that on July 3, 2007, the

8

warden issued a program status report that allegedly restored some privileges to black prisoners,

9

including Plaintiff, in facility B but that the black prisoners allegedly were not accorded those privileges

10

in reality. Id. Plaintiff alleges that correctional officers attempted to provoke black prisoners into

11

altercations in an effort “to have restrictions placed back on said prisoners.” Id. Plaintiff states that he

12

filed a group administrative appeal alleging that the warden “and/or his subordinates were retaliating

13

against black prisoners in B4 for the assault on Defendant Amat.” Id. at 4.

14

Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant Amat approached Plaintiff’s cell on September 11, 2007

15

with a wrapped object that Defendant Amat accused Plaintiff and his cell mate of having. Id. Plaintiff

16

states that Defendant Amat returned to Plaintiff’s cell with Defendant T. Catlett, who ordered that

17

Plaintiff and his cell mate be placed in restraints and removed from their cell and placed in administra-

18

tive segregation. [Doc. No. 30, at 4].

19

incident reports: Defendant Amat reported that he found a wrapped object that turned out to be a

20

weapon in front of Plaintiff’s cell, while Defendant Catlett reported that he found the weapon mixed

21

with laundry from Plaintiff’s cell. Id. Plaintiff claims that both reports were falsified. Id. Plaintiff also

22

claims that Defendants Catlett and Amat falsely endorsed a rule violation report containing a statement

23

that the weapon was found in laundry that came out of Plaintiff’s cell. Id. Having received the report

24

on September 23, 2007, Plaintiff states that he was found not guilty of the offense by the disciplinary

25

hearing officer on November 20, 2007 and that he was released from administrative segregation on

26

November 27, 2007. Id. at 4-5. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendant Catlett.

27

[Doc. No. 30, at 5]. Plaintiff feared filing a grievance against Defendant Amat because he was still

28

working at facility B, unlike Defendant Catlett. Id. On January 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed a grievance

Plaintiff states that Defendants Catlett and Amat both filed crime

2

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

against Defendant Amat because Plaintiff believed that Amat had been transferred to another facility.

2

Id. On April 10, 2008, Plaintiff was advised that the district attorney declined to prosecute this matter.

3

Id.

4

Under this set of facts, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Catlett and Amat retaliated against him

5

for exercising his right to file grievances at Calipatria State Prison. Id. at 5. Plaintiff contends that he

6

“suffered severe mental stress, depression, loss of appetite [sic], loss of sleep, loss of association, and

7

loss of enjoyment of life.” [Doc. No. 30, at 5.]

8
9

Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), in reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,

10

the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which

11

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommenda-

12

tions made by the magistrate judge.”

13

Defendants filed objections to the R&R and requested the Court review whether Defendants are

14

entitled to qualified immunity for the actions described in this case. Plaintiff also objects to portions of

15

the R&R and requested the Court review whether: (1) Plaintiff presented a genuine dispute of material

16

fact on the causation element of the retaliation claims; and (2) Plaintiff provided a genuine dispute of

17

material fact in regards to the legitimate correctional goal element of the retaliation claim.

18

1. Whether Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity for the Actions Described

19

Defendants argue that the R&R misapplied the two-prong test established by the Supreme Court

20

in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) for determining whether qualified immunity applies. [Doc. No.

21

30, at 5.] To find qualified immunity, the Court must first consider whether the facts alleged, taken in

22

the light most favorable to Plaintiff, show that the government officials’ conduct violated a constitu-

23

tional right. Id. at 201. Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’

24

submissions,” the Court must determine whether the constitutional right that was potentially violated

25

was clearly established in the specific context of the case at hand. Id. Defendants object to the R&R on

26

three grounds. First, Defendants maintain that because the Magistrate Judge concluded there is no

27

evidence of a constitutional violation, “the inquiry should stop there, and qualified immunity need not

28

be reached.” (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200). [Doc. No. 96, at 3.] Second, Defendants object that it
3

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

was not appropriate for the court to consider the evidence in the case in connection with the substantive

2

claim of a constitutional violation, but to not consider the same evidence in connection with the

3

qualified immunity defense. Id. Third, Defendants argue that in determining whether the constitutional

4

violation alleged was clearly established, the court considered the retaliation claim in the abstract, rather

5

than considering the fact specific context in which Defendants acted in this case. Id. The Court is not

6

persuaded by Defendants’ argument.

7

The Court reviewed the record and finds the magistrate judge appropriately determined that

8

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants argue that qualified immunity should not

9

have been reached because the magistrate judge already found there to be no evidence of a constitutional

10

violation. Id. The test for qualified immunity, however, is even less stringent than the test the

11

magistrate judge used to find summary judgment on the substantive claim. Whereas qualified immunity

12

considers the alleged facts on its face, a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56

13

addresses the sufficiency of the evidence, or of the law, to support the plaintiff’s claims. Warren v. City

14

of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995). Because of the differing legal standards, different

15

conclusions could therefore be reached on the two separate legal issues. Thus, the magistrate judge did

16

not err in deciding qualified immunity after reaching a conclusion for summary judgment on the

17

substantive claim.

18

Defendants also argue that the magistrate judge inappropriately dismissed the case’s evidence, or

19

lack thereof, in connection with the qualified immunity defense. [Doc. No. 96, at 3.] Again, the first

20

inquiry of the qualified immunity test addresses whether a violation could be made out on a favorable

21

view of the parties’ submissions. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. The test does not, as Defendants suggest,

22

address the sufficiency of the evidence to support whether a violation actually occurred. This Court

23

therefore shares the magistrate judge’s finding that the alleged facts, viewed in light most favorable to

24

Plaintiff, potentially show a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right to file grievances. [Doc. No. 95,

25

at 12.] Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants drafted and approved a false rules violation report against

26

him in order to retaliate against Plaintiff for filing an administrative group appeal. [Doc. No. 30, at 5.]

27

Not withstanding sufficient evidence to prove Plaintiff’s claim, a constitutional right would have been

28
4

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

violated were the allegations established. The magistrate judge thus appropriately decided the qualified

2

immunity defense based only on the alleged facts viewed most favorably to Plaintiff.

3

Defendants similarly object to the R&R by claiming the retaliation claim was considered in the

4

abstract, rather than the fact-specific context in which Defendants acted in this case. [Doc. No. 96, at 3-

5

4.] Defendants again confuse the qualified immunity test with one that considers the facts as illuminated

6

by the evidence presented as opposed to only considering the facts in light most favorable to Plaintiff.

7

Id. at 4. The R&R did not consider the retaliation claim in the abstract. Instead, the magistrate judge

8

based the qualified immunity finding on the alleged facts as if they were established. [Doc. No. 95, at

9

12]. Thus, the fact-specific context of the case was considered by the magistrate judge when the

10

determination was made that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Taking the claim

11

on its face, Plaintiff’s constitutional right to file grievances would have been violated if Defendants in

12

fact drafted and approved a false rules violation report against him in retaliation for filing the adminis-

13

trative group appeal. Furthermore, the alleged action taken by Defendants would have violated a clearly

14

established constitutional right to file grievances, because a reasonable officer could not have believed

15

their retaliatory conduct did not violate federal law.

16

Thus, under Saucier’s two-prong test for determining whether the qualified immunity defense

17

applies, the magistrate judge appropriately determined that the defense is not appropriate in this case.

18

The record reveals that the magistrate judge considered the alleged facts in light most favorable to

19

Plaintiff. Further, in considering the allegations as if they were established, a potential violation of

20

Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional right to file grievances was established. Based upon the

21

foregoing, the Defendants’ objection is OVERRULED and the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s

22

findings on this issue.

23
24
25

2. Whether Plaintiff Presented a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact on the Causation Element
of the Retaliation Claims
A viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a

26

state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected

27

conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the

28

action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,
5

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

567-568 (9th Cir. 2005). To raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to retaliatory motive, the plaintiff

2

must produce, “in addition to evidence that the defendant knew of the protected speech, at least (1)

3

evidence of proximity in time between the protected speech and the allegedly retaliatory decision, (2)

4

evidence that the defendant expressed opposition to the speech or (3) evidence that the defendant’s

5

proffered reason for the adverse action was false or pretextual.” Pinard v. Clatskanie School Dist. 6J,

6

467 F.3d 755, 771 n.21 (9th Cir. 2006).

7

The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to provide any corroborating evidence to support

8

his declaration that Defendants knew of the July 2007 group appeal before the September 11, 2007

9

incident. [Doc. No. 95, at 9-10.] Plaintiff argues that a legitimate inference can be drawn from the

10

conduct of T. Ochoa, M. Ormand and D. Edwards that would have alerted Defendants, directly or

11

indirectly, of Plaintiff’s July 2007 group appeal. [Doc. No. 101, at 3-4.] Specifically, Plaintiff lists four

12

instances as evidence that Defendants would have been alerted to the existence of the group appeal: (1)

13

an investigation of the allegations in the group appeal would have required Defendants to be contacted

14

and interviewed; (2) Chief Deputy Warden T. Ochoa directed the appeals coordinator to screen out

15

Plaintiff’s complaints concerning Defendants; (3) appeals coordinator, M. Ormand, provided Defendants

16

with a perjured declaration; and (4) appeals coordinator, D. Edwards, retaliated against Plaintiff for

17

filing a complaint against the staff. [Doc. No. 86, at 16-17.]

18

The Court adopts the R&R’s finding that Plaintiff failed to provide any corroborating evidence

19

to support that Defendants were alerted of the group appeal in any of the four aforementioned instances.

20

[Doc. No. 95, at 9-10.] Plaintiff relies on Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2009) to show a

21

legitimate inference that Defendants were aware of the July 2007 appeal. [Doc. No. 101, at 3-4.] In

22

Espinal, the plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming, among other things, correctional

23

officers used excessive force to retaliate against him for a prior lawsuit filed against the Department of

24

Corrections and various officers. Espinal, 558 F.3d at 120-121. Espinal, however, differs in that a

25

specific defendant in the second lawsuit was also a defendant in the first action. Id. at 130. The court in

26

Espinal therefore found a legitimate inference could be made that the officer who was a defendant in

27

both lawsuits could have made the defendant named only in the second action aware of the first. Id.

28
6

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

Here, Plaintiff’s initial administrative group appeal did not mention or name either Defendant.

2

[Doc. No. 85-4, at 50.] Instead, the alleged misconduct was against “Warden Scribner and his subordi-

3

nates.” Id. Unlike Espinal, no legitimate inference could be made that Defendants were aware of the

4

previous action because neither of them were mentioned in the group appeal and there is no evidence

5

that either was ever put on notice of any such action. Id. Plaintiff’s statements that Defendants were

6

made aware of the grievance through the investigation process lacks corroborating support. [Doc. No.

7

86, at 16.] There is no evidence to show that either Defendants needed to be contacted regarding the

8

group misconduct appeal. Furthermore, the appeal decision made no mention of employee interviews

9

and did not signal that either Defendant was involved in the investigation process. [Doc. No. 85-4, at

10

58.] Moreover, Plaintiff stated under oath that he had never spoken to any staff members, except

11

Lieutenant Sigler, about the group appeal and that neither Defendant ever made a comment to him about

12

it. Id. at 16. The magistrate judge also appropriately found that the incidents involving Ochoa, Ormand,

13

and D. Edwards provide no evidence as to whether Defendants were alerted to the existence of the group

14

appeal. [Doc. No. 95, at 9.] Plaintiff thus failed to provide any corroborating evidence to support his

15

claim that Defendants knew of the July 2007 group appeal before the September 11, 2007 incident.

16

Therefore, Plaintiff did not present a genuine dispute of material fact on the causation element of the

17

retaliation claims and the Plaintiff’s objection on this issue is OVERRULED.

18
19

3. Whether Plaintiff Presented a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact on the Legitimate
Correctional Goal Element of the Retaliation Claims

20

“A successful retaliation claim requires a finding that ‘the prison authorities retaliatory action

21

did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to

22

achieve such goals.’” Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). “The plaintiff bears the

23

burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he

24

complains.” Id. The court “should ‘afford appropriate deference and flexibility’ to prison officials in

25

the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for conduct alleged to be retaliatory.” Id. at

26

807.

27
28

Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s finding that Plaintiff failed to provide a genuine dispute of
material fact in regards to the legitimate correctional goal element of the retaliation claim. [Doc. No.
7

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

95, at 11.] Plaintiff alleges that a legitimate correctional goal did not exist because (1) Defendants

2

falsified their reports; (2) the Crime/Incident Reports and the Rules Violation Reports contained

3

discrepancies as to where the weapon was found; (3) Plaintiff and cell mate were ultimately found not

4

guilty of possessing the weapon; and (4) even if Defendants found the weapon in front of his cell,

5

Plaintiff could not be held accountable for it because it was not under his control. [Doc. No. 101, at 5.]

6

Plaintiff argues that a legitimate correctional goal did not exist because Defendant Amat falsified

7

the Crime/Incident Report by reporting that the weapon was found in front of Plaintiff’s cell as opposed

8

to the day room floor where Plaintiff alleges. [Doc. No. 101, at 5.] Plaintiff, however, fails to provide

9

any evidence to support where the weapon was found other than Plaintiff’s own declaration. [Doc. No.

10

30, at 4; Doc. No. 101, at 5]. Plaintiff further argues that the discrepancies between the Crime/Incident

11

Reports and the Rules Violation Reports “bears upon the reliability of Defendant Catlett’s incident

12

report.” [Doc. No. 101, at 5.] Upon review of the record, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s

13

finding that the reports do not contain an apparent discrepancy. [Doc. No. 95, at 11.] Both the

14

Crime/Incident Reports and the Rules Violation Report note that the weapon was found in front of

15

Plaintiff’s cell. [Doc. No. 85-6, at 6, 18.] Plaintiff’s assertion that the Rules Violation Report stated the

16

weapon was found “in the laundry that came out of” Plaintiff’s cell whereas the Crime/Incident Report

17

noted it was found “while collecting laundry in front of ” Plaintiff’s cell does not support a finding of

18

any such discrepancy. [Doc. No. 101, at 5.] Plaintiff also argues a legitimate correctional goal did not

19

exist because both he and his cell mate were later exonerated for possession of the weapon. [Doc. No.

20

101, at 5.] This disciplinary hearing decision, however, was based on the fact that the weapon was

21

found in front of Plaintiff’s cell, a common area, and there was no evidence to prove it was ever under

22

the exclusive control of either inmate. Not withstanding evidence to prove the weapon belonged to

23

either cell mate, under the California Code of Regulations, Title 15 section 3312(a)(3), prison staff are

24

required to document discovery of inmate-manufactured weapons. Defendants therefore properly

25

reported the weapon allegedly found in the common area in front of Plaintiff’s cell. For the foregoing

26

reasons, Plaintiff failed to provide evidence proving the absence of a correctional goal for Defendants’

27

conduct. Therefore, Plaintiff did not present a genuine dispute of material fact on the legitimate

28
8

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)

1

correctional goal element of the retaliation claims and the Plaintiff’s objection on this issue is OVER-

2

RULED.

3
4

Conclusion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this

5

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds Judge Lewis' Report and Recommenda-

6

tion to be supported by the record and based on a proper analysis and therefore OVERRULES the

7

objections filed by the parties, [Doc. Nos. 96 and 101], and ADOPTS the R&R, [Doc. No. 95], in its

8

entirety. Based thereon, Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 85], is GRANTED

9

terminating this case. The Court issues a certificate of appealability.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

DATED: January 5, 2012

13
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\1983\Miller\08cv2428.Order.Adopts.R&R.wpd

9

08-cv-2428-AJB (PCL)