Elledge v. Ramirez et al

Filing 40

Opinion and Order Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof in 1) detailing an inadequate County policy or custom, 2) showing the County was deliberately indifferent in implementing that policy or custom, or 3) linking the policy or custom to the alleged Constitutional violation. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 15 is therefore granted. Signed on 8/14/2009 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

FlLEV09 ftJG 14105()JSOC-(Rt1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CHARLES ELLEDGE Plaintiff, C i v i l No. 0 8 - 7 7 6 - P A
OPiNION AND ORDER

v.
MARION COUNTY SHERIFF RAUL RAMIREZ a n d MARION COUNTY, Defendants.
PAJlNER, J u d g e .

Plaintiff Charles Elledge brings this action against Marion County and i t s Sheriff, Raul Ramirez, after being detained in Marion County Corrections Facility for twenty-one days past his release date. Elledge claims deprivation of his Eighth and

F o u r t e e n t h Amendment r i g h t s a n d i n v o k e s f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 42 U . S . C .
§

1983.

Elledge also brings a claim for D e f e n d a n t s move t h i s c o u r t

n e g l i g e n c e u n d e r O r e g o n common l a w . f o r summary j U d g m e n t .

Because P l a i n t i f f has not met his burden

of proof in linking his alleged injury to a municipal policy or c u s t o m , D e f e n d a n t s m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d . 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND

E l l e d g e was d e t a i n e d i n M a r i o n C o u n t y C o r r e c t i o n s F a c i l i t y (MCCF) f o r t w e n t y - o n e d a y s p a s t h i s r e l e a s e d a t e . This over

detention resulted from an apparent miscommunication between the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion ( C i r c u i t C o u r t ) a n d MCCF. E l l e d g e was c o n v i c t e d a n d s e n t e n c e d t o

s i x m o n t h s j a i l f o r U n a u t h o r i z e d U s e o f a M o t o r V e h i c l e (UUMV).
He was a w a i t i n g a l a t e r c o u r t d a t e o n a s e p a r a t e P o s s e s s i o n o f a C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e {PCS} c h a r g e . Pursuant to an agreement

between Elledge, the Marion County Deputy District Attorney, and t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t , E l l e d g e was t o c o m p l e t e a s i x m o n t h j a i l s e n t e n c e f o r t h e UUMV c o n v i c t i o n o n J u l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , b e f o r e b e i n g r e l e a s e d u p o n h i s own r e c o g n i z a n c e f o r t h e PCS c h a r g e . Neither

the Circuit Court nor the parties reduced this stipUlated sentence agreement to writing for the inmate'S file. E l l e d g e ' s f i l e a t MCCF d i d n o t r e f l e c t t h a t h e was t o b e r e l e a s e d u p o n h i s own r e c o g n i z a n c e o n t h e PCS c h a r g e a f t e r c o m p l e t i n g h i s UUMV s e n t e n c e . R a t h e r , t h e f i l e m i s t a k e n l y showed To c l a r i f y t h i s

a $10,000 bail as a condition of release.

p r o b l e m , o n May 2 5 t h , 2 0 0 6 , E l l e d g e i n f o r m e d MCCF i n w r i t i n g t h a t h e was t o b e r e l e a s e d o n h i s own r e c o g n i z a n c e f o r t h a t c h a r g e . He w r o t e , n I t o o k a p l e a a g r e e m e n t o n May l o t h . . . w i t h t h e a g r e e m e n t I w o u l d b e [ r e l e a s e d o n my own r e c o g n i z a n c e ] o n my PCS2. I t s t i l l shows I h a v e a b a i l o f $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . . . Please

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

correct t h i s p r o b l e m s o I c a n g o t o t h e w o r k c e n t e r .

thank you.

w '

I n r e s p o n s e , t h e MCCF r e c o r d s c l e r k w r o t e , " I h a v e c h e c k e d

wi

the

c o u r t s [ a n d ] I d o n o t s h o w y o u a r e t o b e r e c g e d [ s i c ] o n [ t h e PCS charge]. Contact your attorney i f this is incorrect."

A f t e r c o m p l e t i n g h i s UUMV s e n t e n c e o n J u l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , E l l e d g e r e m a i n e d i n c a r c e r a t e d a w a i t i n g t r i a l o n t h e PCS c h a r g e . I t was

n o t u n t i l A u g u s t 2 , 2 0 0 6 , t h a t E l l e d g e was s u m m a r i l y r e l e a s e d when h i s a t t o r n e y s a w h i m i n j a i l .
LEGAL STAHDARDS

" R u l e S 6 { c ) m a n d a t e s t h e e n t r y o f summary j u d g m e n t . a g a i n s t a p a r t y who f a i l s t o make a s h o w i n g s u f f i c i e n t t o establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and upon which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." C e l o t e x C o r p . v . C a t r e t t , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 322 ( 1 9 8 6 ) .

"When a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j U d g m e n t i s p r o p e r l y made a n d s u p p o r t e d , a n o p p o s i n g p a r t y may n o t r e l y m e r e l y o n a l l e g a t i o n s o r d e n i a l s i n i t s own p l e a d i n g ; r a t h e r , i t s r e s p o n s e must . . trial." set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for F e d . R. c i v . P . S6 ( e ) ( 2 ) .
D:ISCUSSIOH
A . COUNTY POLICY

The " f i r s t i n q u i r y i n a n y c a s e a l l e g i n g m u n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t y under
§

1983 i s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a d i r e c t c a u s a l

link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

constitutional d e p r i v a t i o n . " (1989) .

C a n t o n v . H a r r i s , 489 U . S . 3 7 8 , 3 8 5

Defendants admit they have a policy requiring court ordered releases to be in writing to ensure the authenticity and specific terms of the order. Plaintiff accepts this policy and goes one

s t e p f u r t h e r t o a l l e g e MCCF d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y i n v e s t i g a t e t h e t e r m s o f a n i n m a t e ' s r e l e a s e when c h a l l e n g e d . Plaintiff,

however, does not meet his burden of proof here. P o i n t i n g t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f h i s own r e l e a s e , E l l e d g e a l l e g e s MCCF's p o l i c y d o e s n o t l o o k b e y o n d a p r i s o n e r ' s f i l e t o review the terms of his release. t h a t MCCF " c h e c k e d The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s , h o w e v e r ,

wi

the courts" upon Elledge's request.

Regardless, even i f I accept Plaintiff's allegation that the j a i l did not look beyond his prisoner f i l e , there i s no evidence t h i s a l l e g e d l y d e f i c i e n t r e v i e w was c a u s e d b y o f f i c i a l C o u n t y p o l i c y rather than the mere conduct of an individual employee. See

H a r r i s , 489 U . S . a t 3 9 1 ( h o l d i n g t h e m i s t a k e o f a n i n d i v i d u a l police officer "says l i t t l e about the training program or the legal basis for holding the city liable"). In opposition to

D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t P l a i n t i f f m u s t p r e s e n t more t h a n b a r e a l l e g a t i o n s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f the County's policy. S e e F e d . R. c i v . P . 5 6 ( e ) ( 2 ) .

Because P l a i n t i f f h a s n o t met h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f h e r e , t h i s c a s e c o n s i d e r s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f MCCF's r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

court o r d e r e d r e l e a s e s b e i n w r i t i n g .
B . DBLIBBRATE INDIFFBRENCE

A

§

1983 p l a i n t i f f m u s t show t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s o f f i c i a l

policy or custom i s deliberately indifferent to his constitutional rights.
~,

o v i a t t v . P e a r c e , 954 F . 2 d a t 1 4 7 7 .

T h i s may b e p r o p e r l y i n f e r r e d w h e r e t h e n e e d f o r f u r t h e r a c t i o n on the part of the municipality "is so obvious, and the inadequacy [of the current 'procedure] so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers . . . can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." Harris
l

489 U . S . a t 3 9 0 .

P l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t show t h e C o u n t y o r S h e r i f f R a m i r e z a c t e d with deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights by requiring court ordered releases to be in writing. A pattern of

o v e r d e t e n t i o n d u e t o MCCF's r e l e a s e p O l i c y i s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d , a n d P l a i n t i f f p r o v i d e s n o s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n known t o t h e county's policymakers. C f . O v i a t t , 954 F . 2 d a t 1 4 7 6 . Merely

requiring court ordered releases to be in writing does not evidence a deliberate disregard for citizens' constitutional rights.
C . MOVING PORCE

P l a i n t i f f m u s t p r o v e h i s i n j u r y was " c l o s e l y r e l a t e d " t o a n " i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i e n c y " i n t h e c o u n t y ' s p o l i c y , H a r r i s , 489 U . S . at 391, and preventable with an appropriate policy. 5 - OPINION AND ORDER Gibson v.

Washoe, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 1 7 5 , 1194 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . neither.

Plaintiff proves

P l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o show MCCF's p o l i c y c a u s e d h i s o v e r detention. Nothing suggests the requirement that court ordered

r e l e a s e s b e i n w r i t i n g c o n s t r a i n e d MCCF's i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Elledge's release. F u r t h e r , P l a i n t i f f was a d v i s e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y

s i x weeks before h i s r e l e a s e date t o contact h i s a t t o r n e y i f the court's records were wrong, yet failed to do so. Thus,

P l a i n t i f f ' s o v e r d e t e n t i o n may b e a t t r i b u t e d a s much t o h i s own inaction as to that of Defendants. Finally, requiring that court orders releasing inmates be in writing i s a sound policy. This ensures the court has the final

word a s t o an i n m a t e ' s r e l e a s e , and c l a r i f i e s t h e terms and authenticity of an order. Providing no plausible alternative to

t h i s m e a s u r e , P l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o show a n a p p r o p r i a t e p o l i c y t h a t would have prevented his injury.

III III III III III III III III
6 - OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION

P l a i n t i f f h a s n o t m e t h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n 1) d e t a i l i n g a n i n a d e q u a t e C o u n t y p o l i c y o r c u s t o m , 2) s h o w i n g t h e C o u n t y w a s deliberately indifferent in implementing that policy or custom, o r 3} l i n k i n g t h e p O l i c y o r c u s t o m t o t h e a l l e g e d C o n s t i t u t i o n a l violation. granted.
I T I S SO ORDERED.

D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s t h e r e f o r e

DATED t h i s

~th

day of

~~~
o N M. PANNER UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T JUDGE

7 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER