Warren v. Nev. Dept. of Corr. et al

Filing 264

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 245 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff Keith Warren's Objection (ECF No. 246 ) to the Report and Recommendation is overruled. Clerk of Court is directed to strike Warren� 39;s reply (ECF No. 248 ). Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 226 ) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Quinten Byrne and SL Foster in Count I. The motion is denied as to Po wers, Vidaurri, and Kelly in Count I. The Motion is granted as to Powers, Vidaurri, and Kelly in Count II. The remaining issue in this action is Warren's claim in Count I that Defendants Powers, Vidaurri, and Kelly violated Warrens Eight Amendment rights when they failed to protect him. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/1/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:17-cv-00228-MMD-CSD Document 264 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

KEITH A. WARREN,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:17-cv-00228-MMD-CSD

v.

ORDER

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

I.

SUMMARY

12

Pro se Plaintiff Keith Warren, who is in the custody of the Nevada Department of

13

Corrections, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against correctional officers Powers and

14

Kelly, warden Quinten Byrne, deputy director SL Foster, and correctional officer/gang

15

investigator Vidaurri (together, “Defendants”).1 (ECF No. 49 (“Complaint”).) Warren

16

alleges that Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment for failing to protect him, and that

17

Defendants also retaliated against him for filing grievances. (ECF Nos. 46, 48.)

18

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

19

Judge William G. Cobb.2 (ECF No. 245 (“R&R”).) The R&R recommends the Court grant

20

in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 226

21

(“Motion”)).3 More specifically, the R&R recommends the Motion be granted as to Byrne

22

and Foster in Count I, denied as to Powers, Vidaurri, and Kelly in Count I, and granted as

23

to Powers, Vidaurri and Kelly in Count II. (ECF No. 245.) Warren timely filed an objection

24
1

25
26
27
28

Lieutenant Ramirez and caseworker Chandra Thomas were dismissed from this
action on May 4, 2020, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. (ECF
No. 92.)
2

The Court notes that Judge Cobb issued the R&R prior to his retirement. This
case has thus been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Craig Denney going forward. (ECF
No. 161.)
3

The Court has additionally reviewed Warren’s response and Defendants’ reply to
the Motion. (ECF Nos. 230, 233.)

Case 3:17-cv-00228-MMD-CSD Document 264 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 5

1

to the R&R. (ECF No. 246 (“Objection”).)4 Because the Court agrees with Judge Cobb,

2

and as further explained below, the Court overrules Warren’s Objection and adopts the

3

R&R in full.

4

II.

BACKGROUND
The Court incorporates by reference and adopts Judge Cobb’s recitation of the

5
6

factual background provided in the R&R. (ECF No. 245 at 1-3.)

7

III.

LEGAL STANDARD
Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

8

A.

9

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

10

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

11

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is

12

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

13

recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court’s review is thus de novo

14

because Warren filed his Objection. (ECF No. 246.)

15

B.

Summary Judgment

16

“The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is

17

no dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. United States Dep’t

18

of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is

19

appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any

20

affidavits “show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is

21

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

22

(1986). An issue is “genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a

23

reasonable fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it

24

could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

25

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material

26
27
28

4

Defendants filed a response to the Objection. (ECF No. 247.) However, Warren
filed a reply (ECF No. 248) to Defendants’ response without seeking leave of the court.
See LR IB 3-1(a) (“Replies will be allowed only with leave of the court.”) Accordingly, the
Court strikes from the record Warren’s reply (ECF No. 248).
2

Case 3:17-cv-00228-MMD-CSD Document 264 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 5

1

facts at issue, however, summary judgment is not appropriate. See id. at 250-51. “The

2

amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to

3

require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.’” Aydin

4

Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat’l Bank v. Cities

5

Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a

6

court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

7

party. See Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th

8

Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

9

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of

10

material fact. See Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once

11

the moving party satisfies the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to “set forth specific facts

13

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving

14

party “may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence,

15

through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists,” Bhan

16

v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more than simply

17

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am.,

18

285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

19

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support

20

of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient[.]” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

21

IV.

DISCUSSION

22

Following a de novo review of the R&R and other records in this case, the Court

23

finds good cause to accept and adopt Judge Cobb’s R&R in full. In his Objection, Warren

24

makes 10 objections. (ECF No. 246 at 1-8.) The Court has determined the first five of

25

Warren’s objections do not warrant discussion as they are mere disagreements lodged

26

at certain statements in the R&R. The remaining five objections do not fare much better,

27

but in light of Warren’s pro se status, the Court will summarily address these objections

28

below.
3

Case 3:17-cv-00228-MMD-CSD Document 264 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 5

1

Warren appears to argue that Byrne knew that placing Warren “into another gang

2

infested environment” would cause him to be assaulted. (ECF No. 246 at 5.) Byrne had

3

prior knowledge that Warren was in an unsafe environment and knew that Warren was

4

previously assaulted at the Southern Desert Correctional Center (“SDCC”). (Id.) Warren

5

points to Byrne’s refusal to answer interrogatories to support his proposition that Byrne

6

would have been aware of the assault at SDCC. (Id.) However, Warren’s argument is

7

merely conclusory. The Court, having reviewed Byrne’s answer to the interrogatories and

8

the records in this action, finds that Warren has failed to show a genuine issue of material

9

fact regarding his Eighth Amendment claim that Byrne failed to protect him.

10

Warren appears to further argue that Foster sent an email threatening Warren on

11

November 4, 2013, and her response to a second level grievance, both show that she

12

retaliated against Warren. (Id. at 6.) Additionally, Warren asserts that he filed a complaint

13

against Foster for violating his First Amendment rights in the District Court Clark County

14

Nevada. 5 (Id.) The Court, however, is perplexed by this argument because Warren has

15

not brought a claim of retaliation against Foster. As such, Warren has failed to produce a

16

grievance or kite that shows Foster was notified of the issue regarding the Norteño gang

17

and failed to protect Warren in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court therefore

18

finds that Warren as failed to offer evidence of a genuine issue of material fact.

19

Warren next argues Judge Cobb failed to consider that Powers retaliated against

20

Warren by informing the Norteño gang that Warren was a sex offender, pedophile, and

21

baby killer. (Id. at 6.) Citing to his own sworn declaration, Warren argues that a previous

22

conversation Warren had with Powers and Powers’s verbal assault of Warren evidence

23

Power’s retaliatory nature to harm sex offenders. (Id.) Again, Warren’s argument here is

24

merely conclusory and does not show a genuine issue of material fact.

25

Warren also argues Judge Cobb failed to take into account that Vidaurri retaliated

26

against him by ignoring his complaints about Powers and by making arrangements of

27
28

The Court notes that Warren’s line of argument is difficult to follow and requires
the Court to construe it as stated herein.
4
5

Case 3:17-cv-00228-MMD-CSD Document 264 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 5

1

payment to the Norteño gang on Warren’s behalf. (Id.) According to Warren, these actions

2

show Vidaurri never intended to protect Warren from adverse actions. However, Warren

3

offers no evidence to support his proposition. As such, the Court finds that he has again

4

failed to show a genuine issue of material fact exists.

5

Warren concludes by arguing Judge Cobb did not address his retaliation claim

6

against Byrne. (Id. at 7.) But the Complaint does not allege a claim of retaliation against

7

Byrne. (See ECF No. 46 at 10 (“[Warren] states colorable retaliation claims against

8

Powers, Vidaurri, Kelly and Thomas.”).)
In sum, the Court agrees with the R&R, and overrules Warren’s Objections. The

9
10

Court will adopt Judge Cobb’s R&R in full.

11

V.

12
13
14
15
16
17

CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

William G. Cobb (ECF No. 245) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff Keith Warren’s Objection (ECF No. 246) to the
Report and Recommendation is overruled.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to strike Warren’s reply (ECF
No. 248).

18

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 226)

19

is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Quinten Byrne and SL

20

Foster in Count I. The motion is denied as to Powers, Vidaurri, and Kelly in Count I. The

21

Motion is granted as to Powers, Vidaurri, and Kelly in Count II.

22

It is further ordered that the remaining issue in this action is Warren’s claim in

23

Count I that Defendants Powers, Vidaurri, and Kelly violated Warren’s Eight Amendment

24

rights when they failed to protect him.

25

DATED THIS 1st Day of March 2022.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5