Johnson v. Williams et al

Filing 85

ORDER. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion to compel 73 and defendants' motion to stay 80 are DENIED. Defendants shall file their opposition to plaintiff's pending motion for preliminary injunction 65 within 11 day s of the date of this order. Plaintiff may file a reply within 11 days thereafter. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 65 shall be taken under advisement on August 24, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 7/24/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CASEY LEE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MAX WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. KING, Judge Plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are defendants' motion For the reasons set CV. 07-1659-KI ORDER

to stay, and plaintiff's motion to compel. forth below, both motions are denied. DISCUSSION I. Defendants' Motion to Stay. A. Background.

On or about March 6, 2007, plaintiff filed a habeas corpus petition in Marion County Circuit Court challenging the conditions of his confinement in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) of the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP). OSP Superintendent Brian Belleque

1 -- ORDER

was named as respondent. Belleque violated

Plaintiff alleged that Superintendent right to due process, equal

plaintiff's

protection, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to provide reasonable and necessary mental health and educational services in IMU; failing to provide notice and a hearing prior to his placement in IMU; and subjecting him to confinement without adequate heat and ventilation. On January 8,

2008, the Honorable Joseph V. Ochoa denied the petition. An appeal in that proceeding is currently pending before the Oregon Court of Appeals. On November 5, 2007, plaintiff filed the instant civil rights proceeding. In his fourth amended complaint, plaintiff seeks Plaintiff, now (SRCI),

declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief. confined at the Snake River Correctional

Institution

alleges that his confinement in IMU at both OSP and SRCI violates his constitutional rights. relief captioned "Long Plaintiff sets forth two claims for Isolation" and "Housing Disabled

Term

Inmates in Supermax". In claim one, plaintiff complains that long term, indefinite, confinement in IMU with little external stimuli, little outdoor exercise, no natural lighting, excessive noise, 24-hour

illumination, and inadequate ventilation violates his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In

his second claim, plaintiff alleges that he is disabled and that 2 -- ORDER

defendants have failed to provide adequate mental health treatment, special education programs, and psychotropic medication in IMU. Additionally, plaintiff complains that defendants have censored his incoming and outgoing mail; banned access to hardback books, used excessive force, and denied him adequate medical care for his various medical conditions, including hypertension, chronic bowel problems, migraines, and foot/ankle pain. B. Analysis.

Defendants move to stay this proceeding under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In support of their motion, defendants argue that the three elements necessary for Younger abstention are satisfied. Defendants fail to take into account recent Ninth

Circuit case law clarifying that there are four necessary elements for abstention: (1) ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; (3) the state proceedings provide the plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims; and (4) the federal action would enjoin, or have the practical effect of enjoining, the ongoing state court proceedings. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007); San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. V. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendants fail to address the fourth element in their motion and

3 -- ORDER

supporting memorandum.

Because I conclude that this element is See AmerisourceBergen Corp.,

lacking, I deny the motion to stay.1

495 F.3d at 1149 (abstention proper only if all four requirements are strictly satisfied). In the instant proceeding, plaintiff seeks (1) a declaration that the challenged conditions in IMU are unconstitutional; (2) injunctive relief requiring defendants to design mental health screening for IMU placement, prohibiting defendants from

maintaining 24-hour illumination of IMU cells, and requiring the appointment of a special master to implement a permanent

injunction; and (3) money damages. judgment in the state habeas

As noted above, a final filed by plaintiff,

proceeding

challenging the conditions in IMU of OSP has been entered. Defendants have failed to demonstrate how a judgment in the instant case would enjoin the state proceeding, or have the

practical effect of doing so.

To the extent that the issues in

this case overlap with those in the state case, defendants may Defendants' assertion that the second element, an important state interest, is satisfied by the State of Oregon's "significant interest in enforcing its laws and overseeing state trial courts' disposition of constitutional issues to ensure consistency and accuracy" fails to set forth the type of "uniquely state interest" necessary for Younger abstention. See AmerisourceBergen Corp., 495 F.3d at 1150 (rejecting "universal judicial interest[s]-such as the prompt resolution of cases" as a sufficient state interest). However, I conclude that the state's interest in the orderly and safe operation of its prisons is sufficient to satisfy the second Younger element.
1

4 -- ORDER

assert the defense of collateral estoppel.

See AmerisourceBergen

Corp., 495 F.3d at 1152; see also Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Wakehouse Motors, Inc., 46 Or. App. 199, 207-08, 611 P.2d 658, rev. denied, 289 Or. 373 (1980) (pending appeal does not prevent

judgment from being final for purposes of collateral estoppel); see also Tripati v. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1988) (same). Accordingly, defendants' motion to stay is denied. II. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Plaintiff has served defendants with a request for production of documents containing 20 requests. Defendants have produce

documents responsive to requests 1, 11, and 14. In requests 2-6 and 16-20, plaintiff seeks personnel records, job descriptions, and disciplinary files of correctional officials (including those of defendants). Defendants have produced the

requested job descriptions, but object to production of personnel records and disciplinary files as overbroad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. I agree, and deny plaintiff's motion to compel these documents. In requests 7-9, plaintiff seeks photographs and computer images of certain cells and the recreation yard in the IMU at OSP and SRCI; and the "new computerized card activated electronic "Guard Watch" activities. Defendants object on the basis, inter

alia, that the requested information would compromise the safety

5 -- ORDER

and security of staff and inmates.

Plaintiff's motion to compel a

response to these requests is denied on that basis. In requests 10, 12, 13, and 15, plaintiff seeks documents related to other inmates. These requests are denied on the basis

that they are overbroad, seek confidential information, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion to compel (#73) and defendants' motion to stay (#80) are DENIED. Defendants shall file their opposition to plaintiff's pending motion for preliminary injunction (#65) within 11 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff may file a reply within 11 days thereafter. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (#65) shall be taken UNDER ADVISEMENT on August 24, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of July, 2009. /s/ Garr M. King Garr M. King United States District Judge

6 -- ORDER