Roberts v. Beard et al

Filing 136

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation is Adopted in full. (ECF No. 130 ). Plaintiff's motion to schedule the evidentiary hearing after August 14, 2018 (ECF No. 132 ) is Denied as moot. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 116 ) is Granted as to the exhausted retaliation claim for the April 2, 2014 rules violation report and the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on exhaustion, qualified immunity, and state law g rounds as to Plaintiff's remaining claims (ECF No. 116 ) is Denied without prejudice and with leave to refile following the evidentiary hearing. It is further Ordered that this action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary heari ng to resolve the disputed material facts of whether the prison improperly failed to process Plaintiff's alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014; and July 8, 2014. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 09/24/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY ROBERTS,

Case No.: 15cv1044-WQH-RBM
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER

J. BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

HAYES, Judge:

17

The matters before the Court are the motion for summary judgment filed by

18

Defendants (ECF No. 116), the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate

19

Judge (ECF No. 130), the objections filed by Defendants (ECF No. 133), and the ex parte

20

application to set evidentiary hearing date after August 14, 2018 filed by Plaintiff (ECF

21

No. 132).

22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Tony Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated

24

this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants A.

25

Buenrostro, R. Davis, C. Meza, A. Parker, R, Santiago, K. Seibel, and R. Solis for

26

violations of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and his Eighth Amendment right to be free

27

from cruel and unusual punishment. (ECF Nos. 1, 2).

28
1
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

1

On September 16, 2016, the Court ruled on a motion to dismiss and for summary

2

judgment on exhaustion grounds filed by Defendant Buenrostro and a motion to dismiss

3

and for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds filed by Defendants R. Santiago, C.

4

Meza, A. Parker, R. Davis, R. Solis, and K. Seibel. (ECF No. 46). The Court adopted a

5

Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 40) in its entirety

6

as follows: (1) the Court denied the motions for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds

7

as procedurally improper because an answer had not yet been filed; (2) the Court denied

8

the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro; (3) the

9

Court granted the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claims as to all other served

10

Defendants; and (4) the Court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment

11

claims as to all named Defendants.

12

Plaintiff’s remaining claims include retaliation for engaging in First Amendment

13

conduct and violation of the Eighth Amendment on the grounds that Defendant Buenrostro

14

sexually assaulted him during a pat-down search. Plaintiff also brings causes of action

15

arising under California law.

16

On January 9, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds

17

that: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust all claims except retaliation against Defendant

18

Buenrostro regarding the April 2, 2014 rules violation report, (2) Defendants are entitled

19

to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s exhausted retaliation claim; (3) the evidence

20

demonstrates that Defendant Buenrostro did not violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

21

rights; (4) no private right of action exists under state law; and (5) Defendants are entitled

22

to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 116). On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition

23

to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 119, 120).

24

On May 25, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. (ECF

25

No. 130). The Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant in part and

26

deny in part the motion for summary judgment. The Report and Recommendation

27

recommends that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant Buenrostro on

28

the exhausted First Amendment retaliation claim that Defendant Buenrostro falsified a
2
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

1

rules violation report against Plaintiff. The Report and Recommendation concludes that

2

Plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence demonstrating that a retaliatory motive to chill

3

Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to file grievances was the but-for cause of Defendant

4

Buenrostro’s report.

5

The Report and Recommendation concludes that Plaintiff has not exhausted his

6

remaining claims, but further concludes that disputed issues of material fact exist as to

7

whether “the existing and generally available administrative remedies” were “effectively

8

unavailable” to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 130 at 27). The Report and Recommendation identifies

9

Plaintiff’s assertions that he filed grievances on April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014; and July 8,

10

2014 and finds material, disputed facts as to whether those filings “either vanished or were

11

unlawfully rejected.” (ECF No. 130 at 27). The Report and Recommendation recommends

12

that summary judgment on these claims be denied until an evidentiary hearing is held to

13

decide the disputed facts surrounding exhaustion.

14

On June 13, 2018, Defendants filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

15

(ECF No. 133). Defendants contend that the Report and Recommendation fails to address

16

Defendants’ substantive Eighth Amendment claims, Defendants’ state law claims, and

17

Defendants’ qualified immunity claims. (ECF No. 133 at 1–2). Defendants contend that

18

they are entitled to summary judgment on these grounds.

19

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to set the evidentiary hearing

20

date after August 14, 2018. (ECF No. 132). Plaintiff asserts that he has a scheduled

21

appearance before the Board of Parole Hearings for a parole suitability consideration

22

hearing in Stockton, California on August 14, 2018. Id. at 2. Plaintiff requests that any

23

evidentiary hearing be scheduled after August 14, 2018 so that his hearing before the Board

24

of Parole Hearings will not be delayed by a transfer to a different facility.1 Id.

25
26
27
The Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s ex parte application to set the evidentiary hearing date after
August 14, 2018.
1

28

3
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

The record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed any response to Defendants’

1
2
3

objections.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

4

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

5

issued by a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

6

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions

7

of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

8

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

9

The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation

10

to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

11

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

12

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to

13

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as

14

correct.”).

15

III.

EXHAUSTED RULES VIOLATION REPORT RETALIATION CLAIM

16

No party has filed an objection to the conclusion of the Report and Recommendation

17

that summary judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant Buenrostro as to the

18

exhausted First Amendment retaliation claim for the April 2, 2014 rules violation report.

19

The Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 130) and grant

20

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 116) as to the retaliation claim for

21

the rules violation report.

22

IV.

EXHAUSTION

23

The Report and Recommendation found that, although Defendants showed Plaintiff

24

failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his remaining claims, summary judgment was

25

precluded because Plaintiff provided evidence to show the administrative remedies were

26

“effectively unavailable” to him for the grievances he allegedly filed on April 2, 2014; June

27

23, 2014; and July 8, 2014. (ECF No. 130).

28
4
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

1

The Supreme Court has explained that an administrative remedy is unavailable, such

2

that a prisoner’s failure to exhaust is excused, in three circumstances: if the procedure

3

“operates as a simple dead end,” if it is “so opaque that . . . no ordinary prisoner can discern

4

or navigate it,” or if “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a

5

grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Ross v. Blake,

6

136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859–60 (2016). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated

7

that an inmate’s ability to avail themselves of administrative remedies is “thwarted” if

8

prison administrators “improperly fail to process a prisoner’s grievance.” Andres v.

9

Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076, 1078–79 (2017) (citing Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859–60); see also

10

Ellis v. Navarro, No. C07-05126SBA(PR), 2011 WL 845902, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8,

11

2011) (noting that absence of a prison record “at most, corroborates [the prison’s] claim of

12

non-receipt. It does not, however, prove that [the inmate] failed to timely and properly

13

seek to submit his Form 602 appeal”) (emphasis in original).

14

No party has filed an objection to the conclusions of the Report and

15

Recommendation identifying factual disputes as to exhaustion and recommending an

16

evidentiary hearing.

17

Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. The Court will adopt the

18

Report and Recommendation as to the existence of a factual dispute whether the prison

19

improperly failed to process Plaintiff’s alleged April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014; and July 8,

20

2014 grievances. The Court will accordingly deny Defendants’ motion for summary

21

judgment on exhaustion grounds.2 The Court will remand this action to the Magistrate

22

Judge for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed material facts of whether the prison

(ECF No. 130). The Court has reviewed the Report and

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Because the Court concludes that material issues of fact exist as to exhaustion, discussion regarding
qualified immunity and state law is premature. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“Exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claim.”).
Accordingly, the Court will overrule Defendants’ qualified immunity and state law objections and deny
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on those grounds. (ECF No. 116).
5
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

1

improperly failed to process Plaintiff’s alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014;

2

and July 8, 2014.

3

V.

EIGHTH AMENDMENT SEXUAL ASSAULT CLAIM

4

Defendants assert the Report and Recommendation fails to address whether they are

5

entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim that Defendant

6

Buenrostro sexually assaulted him during a pat-down search. (ECF No. 133). Roberts

7

provides a declaration stating that during a clothed body search on April 2, 2014, Defendant

8

Buenrostro “rubbed or touched [Plaintiff’s] male organ for the purpose of sexual

9

gratification.” (ECF No. 119 at 35). Defendants provide a declaration stating that

10

Defendant Buenrostro “did not rub Plaintiff’s private parts for sexual gratification,” but

11

that he “searched Plaintiff because his actions were suspicious.” (ECF No. 116-4 at 2).

12

Summary judgment is proper when the “pleadings, depositions, answers to

13

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

14

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment

15

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue of fact is “genuine” only if there is

16

sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the nonmoving party. See

17

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if it may

18

affect the outcome of the case. Id. The party moving for summary judgment bears the

19

initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits that

20

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett,

21

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

22

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond

23

the pleadings and, by its own evidence, “set forth specific facts showing that there is a

24

genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). In order to make this showing, the

25

nonmoving party must “identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes

26

summary judgment.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation

27

omitted). “In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the

28

evidence or make credibility determinations, and is required to draw all inferences in a
6
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

1

light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th

2

Cir. 1997) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248), overruled on other grounds by Shakur v.

3

Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 885 (9th Cir. 2008); Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965,

4

977 (9th Cir. 1997) (“For the purposes of summary judgment . . . we must assume the

5

nonmoving party’s version of the facts to be correct.”) (citation omitted). The nonmovant’s

6

evidence need only be such that a “fair-minded jury could return a verdict for [the

7

nonmovant] on the evidence presented.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. In determining

8

whether the nonmovant has met this burden, the Court must consider the evidentiary

9

burden imposed by the applicable substantive law. Id. at 254.

10

“Sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer is a violation of

11

the Eighth Amendment.” Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012). The

12

Ninth Circuit requires two steps to assess a prisoner’s claim of sexual harassment. Id.

13

First, “courts consider whether ‘the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of

14

mind’”—that is, “maliciously and with the intent to inflict harm.” Id. at 1046, 1049

15

(quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992) (alteration in original). The evaluation

16

is subjective. Id. at 1049. Courts presume sufficient culpability if there is “no legitimate

17

penological purpose for a prison official’s conduct.” Id. at 1050 (citations omitted).

18

Second, courts determine whether “the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful

19

enough.’”

20

psychological injury is not required; “[r]ather, the only requirement is that the officer’s

21

actions be ‘offensive to human dignity.’” Id. at 1050 (quoting Schwenk v. Hartford, 204

22

F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000)). “[N]ot every malevolent touch by a prison guard or

23

official gives rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.” John-Charles v. Abanico, No. C07-

24

5786CW(PR), 2011 WL 738400, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Prisoners “must establish that

25

the alleged sexual harassment was egregious, pervasive, and/or widespread in order to state

26

a claim under the Eighth Amendment.” Id.

Id. at 1046 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8).

Proof of a physical or

27

Conduct rising to the level of sexual harassment for Eighth Amendment purposes

28

has included a correctional officer “gripping” an inmate’s buttocks “intentionally to
7
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

1

discriminate against him,” Hill v. Rowley, 658 F. App’x 840, 841 (9th Cir. 2016); a

2

correctional officer searching an inmate “several times, grabbing and massaging [his] penis

3

and scrotum on each pass,” John-Charles, 2011 WL 738400, at *1; an officer “grabb[ing]

4

and cupp[ing] [the inmate’s] genitals in an aggressive manner,” whispering “You don’t

5

feel like a Mexican” into his ear, “aggressively grabb[ing] [the inmate’s] genitals again

6

causing another surge of excruciating pain,” followed by daily verbal sexual harassment

7

and pat-down searches, Kirkelie v. Thissell, No. 1:15-cv-00735-DAD-SAB(PC), 2017 WL

8

5900075, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. 2017); an officer performing a strip search “in a manner

9

designed to demean and humiliate” the inmate, Wood, 692 F.3d at 1050 (quoting Calhoun

10

v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 940 (2003)); an officer “inserting his thumb into a prisoner’s

11

anus” with the intent “to humiliate” the prisoner, Rivera v. Drake, 497 F. App’x 635, 638

12

(7th Cir. 2012); and an officer performing a short “gratuitous,” “sexually-motivated”

13

search over the inmate’s clothes and “‘fondl[ing] and squeeze[ing] [his] penis’ in order to

14

‘make sure [he] did not have an erection.’” Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252, 258 (2d

15

Cir. 2015).

16

Conduct not rising to the level of sexual harassment for Eighth Amendment purposes

17

has included a correctional officer “smiling in a sexual contact [sic]” while rubbing his

18

thigh against an inmate’s thigh while the inmate was on the toilet, Watison v. Carter, 668

19

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); “a single pat-down frisk in which a correctional officer

20

grabbed [the inmate’s] genitals through his clothing two times,” Obiegbu v. Werlinger, 581

21

F. App’x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2014); and “a brief unwanted touch on [an inmate’s] buttocks,

22

absent “sexual comments or banter,” or fear of rape or “sexual abuse during the incident.”

23

Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1998).

24

In this case, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant

25

Buenrostro’s conduct does not rise to the level of a sexual assault for purposes of the Eighth

26

Amendment. The Court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the

27

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro.

28

VI.

CONCLUSION
8
15cv1044-WQH-RBM

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted in full.

2

(ECF No. 130). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to schedule the

3

evidentiary hearing after August 14, 2018 (ECF No. 132) is DENIED AS MOOT.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF

5

No. 116) is GRANTED as to the exhausted retaliation claim for the April 2, 2014 rules

6

violation report and the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

8

exhaustion, qualified immunity, and state law grounds as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims

9

(ECF No. 116) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO REFILE

10

following the evidentiary hearing.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge

12

for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed material facts of whether the prison

13

improperly failed to process Plaintiff’s alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014;

14

and July 8, 2014.

15

Dated: September 24, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
15cv1044-WQH-RBM