Singh v. Czerniak et al

Filing 55

Findings & Recommendation: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 34 should be granted. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 42 should be denied as moot. A judgment should be prepared accordingly. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 2/10/2009. Response to Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 2/24/2009. Signed on 1/27/09 by Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

"

I N T H E UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

R O T I S H V I K A S H SINGH, Plaintiff,

CV.07-l906-PK FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION

v.
STAN CZERNIAK, e t aI., Defendants.

P A P A K , M a g i s t r a t e Judge: P l a i n t i f f R o t i s h Singh, appearing pro se, asserts claims Ullder 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated h i s rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, Singh alleges that defendants violated his right to petition t h e govennnent for redress o f grievances and to due process when they placed h i m i n an Intensive Management U n i t at the Oregon State Penitentiary. Although n o t set out as a separate claim i n his complaint, Singh also alleges that defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment. P a g e 1 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

Defendants' m o t i o n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t is n o w before the cOUli, a s is p l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n to compel. This c o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U.S.C. §§ 1331 a n d 1343. F o r the reasons d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t s h o u l d b e granted. S i n g h ' s m o t i o n t o c o m p e l s h o u l d b e d e n i e d as m o o t .

STATEMENT OF FACTS
P l a i n t i f f R o t i s h S i n g h is a n i n m a t e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e O r e g o n D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s . As a r e s u l t o f r e p e a t e d r u l e s v i o l a t i o n s , S i n g h h a s s e r v e d the m a j o r i t y o f h i s s e n t e n c e i n s p e c i a l h o u s i n g u n i t s , as o p p o s e d t o g e n e r a l i n m a t e p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s c a s e a r i s e s o u t o f S i n g h ' s p l a c e m e n t i n t h e I n t e n s i v e M a n a g e m e n t U n i t ( I M U ) i n D e c e m b e r , 2005.

I.

Oregon Department o f Corrections Classification and Grievance Procedures
T h e O r e g o n D e p m i m e n t o f Corrections identifies t h e security risks o f p r i s o n e r s according

to a custody classification system. Or. Admin. R. 291-104-005. U n d e r that system, a n i n m a t e is a s s i g n e d a c u s t o d y level o f m i n i m u m , m e d i u m , c l o s e , o r m a x i m u m . P r i s o n o f f i c i a l s d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l b y e x a m i n i n g a n i n m a t e ' s p u b l i c a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l r i s k factors, i n c l u d i n g t h e t i m e remaining o n h i s sentence. T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o n e c t i o n s uses the c u s t o d y classification system to determine the level o f s u p e r v i s i o n e a c h i n m a t e requires. " M a x i m u m " c u s t o d y is t h e h i g h e s t o f t h e i n m a t e s u p e r v i s i o n levels. A n i n m a t e c l a s s i f i e d a s " m a x i m u m " i s o n e w h o p r e s e n t s a n e x t r e m e r i s k o f escape, violence, a n d / o r d i s r u p t i o n to t h e s a f e a n d o r d e r l y o p e r a t i o n o f t h e institution. M a x i m u m c u s t o d y i n m a t e s a r e h o u s e d i n o n e o f several s p e c i a l h o u s i n g u n i t s , i n c l u d i n g the I M U . P r i s o n o f f i c i a l s a s s i g n a n i n m a t e t o t h e I M U a f t e r a s e r i e s o f reviews. T h e D e p m i m e n t h a s created a Special P o p u l a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t Committee to p e r f o r m those reviews. U n d e r

P a g e 2 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

Oregon Administrative Rule 291-055-0019, w h e n the department assigns a n inmate t o 111m status, t h e i n m a t e r e c e i v e s a c o p y o f t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s u m m a r y , along w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f options for administrative review and a n administrative review request form. Department o f C o r r e c t i o n rules a l s o p r o v i d e t h a t a n i n m a t e m a y o b t a i n a r e v i e w o f a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d e c i s i o n by completing the administrative review request form, specifYing the person to whom the request is submitted and the reasons for the review request. Or. Admin. R. 291-104-0035. T h e O r e g o n D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s h a s a grievance p r o c e d u r e f o r i n m a t e complaints.

A n inmate may grieve "[a]ny oversight or error affecting an inmate." Or. Admin. R. 291-1090149(2)(a)(E). An inmate grievance may request review o f j u s t one matter p e r form. Or. Admin.

R. 291-109-0140(1)(d). A n inmate may n o t grieve a matter when that matter is subject to a
separate review process. Or. Admin. R. 291-109-1049(2)(b)(B). No evidence in the record indicates that placement i n the IMU, by itself, affects a n inmate's good time credits or eligibility for parole. Rather, sanctions for major violations o f prison rules c a n include a recommendation for reduction in good time credits or for a n extension o f a parole release date. Or. Admin. R. 291-105-0069. A n inmate who commits a rule violation may also be subject to review o f their custody classification. Or. Admin. R. 291-105-0066. An i n m a t e i s e n t i t l e d to a h e a r i n g o n c h a r g e s o f m a j o r o r m i n o r v i o l a t i o n s , t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e hearing, and to speak on his or her o w n behalf. Or. Admin. R. 291-105-0056.

II.

Singh's Placement in the Intensive Management Unit
Singh was assigned to IMU housing on December 27, 2005 and remained there until July

2 6 , 2006, w h e n h e w a s r e l e a s e d t o t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . S i n g h r e c e i v e d a m a x i m u m s e c u r i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . H i s a s s i g n m e n t to t h e I M U c a m e a b o u t a f t e r h e a s s a u l t e d a n o t h e r i n m a t e , w h i c h P a g e 3 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A n O N

constituted a major rule violation, and a previous, lengthy misconduct history. Upon his assignment to the IMU, Singh did n o t receive a copy o f t h e classification summary, the description o f his options for administrative review or a n administrative review request form, as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 2 9 1 - 0 5 5 - 0 0 1 9 . After several written communications to various Depmiment o f Corrections staff people seeking to obtain a copy o f a n administrative review form, Singh filed a grievance o n January 25, 2 0 0 6 . H i s g r i e v a n c e e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e t h o u g h t h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s h a d been v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e he did n o t receive a copy o f a n administrative review request form and because placement in I M U w a s cruel a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t . W h i l e h i s g r i e v a n c e w a s s t i l l p e n d i n g , S i n g h m a d e s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t s to o b t a i n a n administrative review request form. His counselor, defendant Buchholz, responded to these efforts b y forwarding Singh's requests to the Classification Unit and to the Assistant Superintendent for Programs. I n addition, i n June 2006, Singh received a letter from defendant Stan Czerniak, a Depmiment o f COl1'ections assistant director, stating t h a t he had forwarded Singh's concerns to the Population Management Office. In the meantime, Singh remained i n IMU housing, suffered what he describes as a "mental breakdown," and received treatment for depression. Although Singh received replies to his other inquiries, he did n o t receive a response to his grievance until June 2006, five months after he filed it. The response denied the grievance o n the ground that it included too many issues. Singh did not re- file his grievance and was released from the IMU the following month. I n total, Singh spent six months in the IMU.

P a g e 4 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

III.

Conditions in the Intensive Management Unit
Once a n inmate is assigned to the IMU, there are four program levels to move through.

Inmates a n i v e o n the unit at Level Two. Inmates receive a handbook w h e n they an'ive in the IMU, which explains the rules goveming their time there. Inmates are provided written criteria for level promotion and demotion while housed i n the IMU. With clear behavior, a n inmate c a n progress through the four levels and be released t o the general population. I n m a t e s i n t h e I M U r e c e i v e b a s i c n e c e s s i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g food, c l o t h i n g , b e d d i n g , t o i l e t r i e s , h e a t , w a t e r , t o i l e t , s h o w e r s a n d e x e r c i s e . I n m a t e s e a t t h e i r m e a l s i n t h e i r c e l l s but m a y l e a v e t h e i r cells to shower or exercise. During his t i m e in the IMU, Singh was allowed 35 minutes outside o f his cell p e r day to shower and exercise, five days p e r week. 1 The exercise yard has an uncovered area that allows inmates to be exposed to the outside elements. The Department p r o v i d e s h e a l t h c a r e a n d m e n t a l h e a l t h t r e a t m e n t s e r v i c e s to I M U i n m a t e s . Cells within the I M U are lit with 32-watt fluorescent bulbs during the day. A t night, 5w a t t f l u o r e s c e n t b u l b s r e m a i n o n to a l l o w s t a f f t o o b s e r v e t h e i n m a t e s . R e g a r d l e s s o f h o u s i n g assignment, all inmates i n the Oregon Department o f Corrections may be observed 24 hours p e r day, seven days a week. Inmates i n the nyru can have authorized personal propeliy, depending o n their program levels. A u t h o r i z e d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e s l e t t e r s , p h o t o g r a p h s , p e n a n d p a p e r , a r a d i o , a n d legal, educational, religious and treatment reading materials. As a n inmate moves to a higher level, he is authorized additional personal property. The Depmiment stores the remainder o f an

Prison regulations provide that inmates are allowed fOliy minutes to shower and exercise p e r day, five days per week. Or. Admin. R. 291-055-0020.
1

P a g e 5 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

inmate's personal property until the inmate transfers from t h e IMU. Inmates in I M U h o u s i n g have limited access to visitors. Inmates i n the I M U are allowed t i m e f o r o n e - h o u r v i s i t s w i t h i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y m e m b e r s a n d t h e n u m b e r o f v i s i t s i n c r e a s e s as the inmate m o v e s to a higher p r o g r a m level. A t Level Two, inmates may have two visits p e r m o n t h . I n m a t e s who m a i n t a i n g o o d b e h a v i o r a n d a c h i e v e h i g h e r p r o g r a m levels m a y h a v e a d d i t i o n a l visits. I n a d d i t i o n , c h a p l a i n s m a k e the r o u n d s o n a w e e k l y basis. T h e D e p m i m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s d o e s not a l l o w I M U i n m a t e s t o use a t e l e p h o n e e x c e p t f o r emergencies, legal matters, o r o t h e r calls authorized by the u n i t manager. N o personal phone calls are allowed other t h a n for verified emergencies, such a s the d e a t h o r serious illness o f a n i m m e d i a t e family member. T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s also h a s d i s c i p l i n a r y s e g r e g a t i o n a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e g r e g a t i o n u n i t s i n a d d i t i o n to t h e I M U . T h e r e s t r i c t i o n s i n t h o s e u n i t s are s i m i l a r to t h o s e i m p o s e d i n t h e IMU. P r i s o n e r s i n all o f t h e s e units r e c e i v e t h e s a m e b a s i c n e c e s s i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g a c c e s s t o m e d i c a l a n d m e n t a l h e a l t h t r e a t m e n t . I n m a t e s i n t h e I M U a n d o t h e r s e g r e g a t i o n all e a t t h e i r m e a l s in their cells and are allowed o u t o f their cells for forty minutes, five days per week, t o s h o w e r a n d / o r exercise. I n m a t e s i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d i s c i p l i n a r y s e g r e g a t i o n m a y r e c e i v e visitors once per week, while, as noted, inmates in IMU, i f t h e y are o n Level Two, may receive v i s i t o r s t w i c e a month. LEGAL STANDARD S u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s a p p r o p r i a t e " i f the p l e a d i n g s , t h e d i s c o v e r y a n d d i s c l o s u r e materials o n file, and any at1idavits s h o w that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and t h a t the m o v a n t i s entitled to j u d g m e n t as a matter o f l a w . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). S u m m m y

P a g e 6 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

judgment is not proper i f material factual issues exist for trial. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Warren v. City o f Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted). In evaluating a m o t i o n for summmy judgment, the district courts o f the United States must draw all reasonable inferences i n favor o f the nonmoving pmiy, and may neither make credibility determinations n o r perform any weighing o f the evidence. See, e.g., Lytle v.
H o u s e h o l d lV.(fg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-55 (1990); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

DISCUSSION In 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Congress created a federal cause o f action for "the deprivation o f any Tights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Castle R o c k v.
Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 755 (2005) (internal citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff who asserts a §

1983 claim must establish: "(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws o f the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed b y a person acting under the color o f State law." L o n g v. County o fLos Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) ( i n t e m a l c i t a t i o n omitted). Individual government officials named as defendants in a § 1983 case may asseli a qualified immunity defense. Qualified immunity shields govemment actors from a suit for damages i f a reasonable official could have believed that his or h e r conduct was lawful, in light o f clearly established l a w and the inf01'mation possessed by the official. A n d e r s o n v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 637-39, 641 (1987). I n assessing whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court may inquire whether the facts alleged, taken i n the light m o s t favorable to t h e p l a i n t i f f , e s t a b l i s h a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n o r may i n s t e a d e x a m i n e w h e t h e r t h e right a t issue P a g e 7 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A n O N

was clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. _ _ , No. 07-751, slip op. a t 10 (Jan. 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) ; see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 1 9 4 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 (2001). Here, Singh alleges that defendants violated his right to petition the government for redress o f grievances and to due process and that they subjected h i m to cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants move for summary judgment o n the basis that they are entitled to q u a l i f i e d immunity. D e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t t h a t S i n g h h a s f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n . I n t h e a l t e m a t i v e , d e f e n d a n t s c l a i m that, i f t h e i r c o n d u c t v i o l a t e d S i n g h ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , t h o s e r i g h t s were n o t c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d . I a d d r e s s w h e t h e r S i n g h h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l violation.

T.

P r o c e d u r a l Due P r o c e s s
A claim for a violation o f procedural due process requires 1) deprivation o f a liberty or

property interest and 2) denial o f adequate procedural protections. HzifJord v. lvIcEnaney, 249 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cil'. 2001). Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause i t s e l f or from state law or regulations. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 2 0 9 , 2 2 1 (2005). "The C o n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f d o e s n o t g i v e r i s e to a l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t i n a v o i d i n g t r a n s f e r to m o r e a d v e r s e conditions o f confinement." Id. a t 221-22 (citing kfeachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). Moreover, "inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cil'. 2003). I n addition, liberty interests c r e a t e d b y s t a t e l a w are " g e n e r a l l y l i m i t e d to f r e e d o m f r o m r e s t r a i n t w h i c h . . . i m p o s e s a t y p i c a l a n d s i g n i f i c a n t h a r d s h i p o n t h e i n m a t e i n r e l a t i o n to t h e o r d i n a t y i n c i d e n t s o f p r i s o n l i f e . " S a n d i n v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Courts have "no single standard" to measure whether a prison hardship is atypical and P a g e 8 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

significant but rather employ a "case by case, fact b y fact consideration." Ramirez, 334 F.3d a t 861 (citing Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996». As part o f its analysis, a C O U l t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r : (1) t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f c o n f i n e m e n t ; (2) t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e c o n d i t i o n a n d t h e degree o f restraint imposed; and (3) whether the sanction will affect the duration o f the prisoner's sentence. I d at 861 (directing district court to consider the fact that inmate had been in segregation for two years in detelmining whether confinement constituted significant and atypical hardship); see a l s o Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 223-24 (holding that inmates' confinement in highly-restrictive "supermax" prison implicates a liberty interest because the placement deprived the inmate o f "almost all hUlllan contact," w a s indefinite and disqualified the inmate from parole consideration); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that administrative segregation for disabled inmate in u n i t n o t equipped for a disabled person gave r i s e to a l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t ) . H e r e , d e f e n d a n t s d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f S i n g h ' s c o n f i n e m e n t i n t h e I M U are similar t o conditions in the Disciplinmy Segregation U n i t and the Administrative Segregation Unit. M o r e o v e r , Singh's I M U p l a c e m e n t w a s n o t indefinite. I n a d d i t i o n , S i n g h p r e s e n t s n o evidence that his inmate placement i n the INID affected the duration o f his sentence. Thus, the conditions i n the IMU are n o t atypical, and do not implicate due process concerns. See Rincker v. Or. Deptf o f Carr. , No. 0 4 - 6 4 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43216, a t *21-22 (D. Or. June 12, 2007) (holding that placement i n the IMU did not give rise to a liberty interest protected by due process). I n light o f my finding that Singh's placement i n the IMU did n o t deprive him o f a liberty interest, I do n o t reach the second part o f the due process inquhy: whether the state provided P a g e 9 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

adequate procedural protections. I note, however, that Singh asserts, and defendants do not contest, that Singh did n o t receive a n administrative review request form, as required by Oregon Administrative Rule 291-055-0019. That failure, though troubling, does not amount to a procedural due process violation, however, because Singh did n o t establish that he has a liberty i n t e r e s t i n a v o i d i n g I M U placement. T h e r e f o r e , s i n c e S i n g h c a n n o t e s t a b l i s h a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l violation occUlTed, the COUlt should grant defendant's motion for summary j u d g m e n t o n p l a i n t i f f s due process cause o f action. Additionally, because Singh's motion to compel sought evidence t h a t w o u l d e s t a b l i s h t h a t d e f e n d a n t s did n o t p r o v i d e h i m w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w r e q u e s t fOlID, t h a t motion should be denied as moot.

II.

First Amendment Right to Petition the Government
The Supreme COUlt has limited the protections afforded by the First Amendment's

Petition Clause to situations where a n individual's associational or speech interests are also implicated. See lvJcDonaldv. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482-85 (1985) (describing the right to petition as "cut from the same cloth" as the other expressive rights embodied in the First A m e n d m e n t a n d h o l d i n g that a p e t i t i o n c l a u s e c l a i m m u s t implicate s o m e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t right); see also WlvLY Techs., Inc. v. iv/iller, 197 F J d 367, 372-373 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that an application for a land use permit did n o t implicate First Amendment rights). In addition, as n o t e d a b o v e , " i n m a t e s l a c k a s e p a r a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e n t i t l e m e n t to a s p e c i f i c p r i s o n g r i e v a n c e procedure." Ramirez, 334 F J d a t 860; lv/ann v. A d a m s , 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, Singh alleges that the prison grievance coordinator, defendant Bales, deprived him o f his First Amendment right to petition the govelmnent. Specifically, the complaint states that Bales failed to file and process Singh's grievance regarding the missing administrative review Page 10 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDAn O N

form. Defendants, however, have produced evidence to demonstrate that Bales did respond to the grievance, albeit five months later. More impoliantly, Singh does n o t have a constitutional entitlement to the prison grievance procedure and has not presented any evidence that defendants' acts deprived h i m o f his right to speech or association. Therefore, the cOUli should grant defendants' m o t i o n for surmnary judgment o n Singh's First Amendment cause o f action.

III.

Eighth Amendment
"The E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t ' s p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t p r o t e c t s

prisoners not only from inhumane methods o f punishment b u t also from inhumane conditions o f confinement." ,vforgan v. }"forgensen, 465 F.3d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4 5 (9th Cir. 2006). "Thus, while conditions o f confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they m u s t n o t involve the wanton and unnecessalY infliction o f pain. I d (internal quotation omitted). In other words, restrictions "must n o t be devoid o f legitimate penological purpose . . . , or contraty to evolving standards o f decency that m a r k the progress o f a maturing society." Id. (internal citation omitted). "The protected liberty interest analysis does not match that o f an Eighth Amendment analysis." Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1081. Rather, a prisoner claiming a n Eighth Amendment violation must show: "(1) that the deprivation he suffered w a s objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety in allowing the deprivation to take place." Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 ( 1 9 9 4 » . "Prison officials have a duty t o ensure that inmates receive adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical cat'e and personal safety." Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). M o r e o v e r , c o u r t s m u s t c o n s i d e r "[t]he c i r c u m s t a n c e s , nature, a n d d u r a t i o n o f a Page 11 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

deprivation" o f these necessities in detelIDining whether a constitutional violation has OCCUlTed.

Jd (noting that "more modest deprivations can also fmID the objective basis o f a violation, b u t
. o n l y i f s u c h d e p r i v a t i o n s are l e n g t h y o r o n g o i n g " ) . H e r e , Singh's c o m p l a i n t d o e s n o t s e t o u t a separate E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t cause o f a c t i o n but nonetheless alleges that defendants subjected h i m to cruel and unusual punishment i n several particulars. The complaint alleges that the lights i n his I M U cell were o n 24 hours p e r day and he was under constant supervision. Singh also alleges that defendants only allowed him 35 minutes to exercise and 10 minutes to shower per day, five days p e r week. Finally, Singh asserts that defendants required that he ate meals i n his cell, did not pelIDit him to use a telephone or his television and CD player, and only allowed one, hour-long, non-contact visit three times p e r month.

A.

L i g h t i n g a n d Supervision

" A d e q u a t e l i g h t i n g is o n e o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l a t t r i b u t e s o f ' a d e q u a t e s h e l t e r ' r e q u i r e d b y the Eighth Amendment." Keenan, 83 F.3d a t 1090 (intemal quotation omitted). Moreover, prison officials may violate the Eighth Amendment when, for no penological reason, they subject inmates to physical and psychological harm from living in constant illumination. Jd H e r e , h o w e v e r , d e f e n d a n t s a l l e g e , a n d S i n g h d o e s n o t d i s p u t e , t h a t l i g h t s i n t h e l M U c e l l s are dimmed to five watts at night. Singh, moreover, does n o t allege or present any evidence that the l i g h t s d e p r i v e d h i m o f s l e e p o r c a u s e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l h a r m . A l t h o u g h h e asserts t h a t h e r e c e i v e d treatment for depression while in the IMU, he does not attribute his depression to the lighting. As a result, I find that the lighting conditions o n the unit did not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Eccleston v. State o f Oregon, No. 03-6148, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23248, at * 14-15 (D. Or. Page 12 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Nov. 9, 2004) (finding dimmed lighting conditions i n the IMU did not violate the Eighth Amendment). B. Exercise

C o u r t s h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t e x e r c i s e is o n e o f t h e basic h u m a n n e c e s s i t i e s p r o t e c t e d b y the Eighth Amendment. Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, " [ d ] e p r i v a t i o n o f o u t d o o r e x e r c i s e v i o l a t e s t h e E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s o f i n m a t e s c o n f i n e d to continuous and long-term segregation." Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1089. Prison officials, however, do not violate the Eighth Amendment when they provide inmates a n opportunity to exercise outside o f their cells and out-of-doors five days a week. See id.; Lelvfaire v. }vfaass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, the parties d o not dispute that Singh had the opportunity to leave his cell for exercise for thirty-five minutes p e r day, five days per week. Moreover, defendants assert, and Singh does n o t dispute that the exercise yard allowed exposure to the outside elements. Therefore, I find that the IMU's exercise policy does n o t violate the Eighth Amendment.
C.

Visits

The Supreme Court has held that a restriction o n access to all visitors for a period o f two years as punishment for multiple substance-abuse violations does n o t violate the Eighth Amendment. Overton v. Bazzetta, the 539 U.S. 126, 130, 136 (2003). The court noted, however, that " i f the withdrawal o f all visitation privileges were permanent 01' for a much longer period, or i f it were applied i n an arbitraty manner to a particular inmate, the case would present different considerations." Id. Here, Singh could receive visits while he was housed i n the IMU. Moreover, placement Page 13 - FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION

in l M U is not permanent, and, in Singh's case, lasted for six months. Thus, the l M U restrictions o n visitation do not violate the Eighth Amendment. D. Access to O t h e r I n m a t e s , T e l e p h o n e , T e l e v i s i o n a n d CD Playel'

A s noted above, a deprivation must be sufficiently serious before it will trigger Eighth Amendment protections. "An institution's obligation under the eighth amendment is at an end i f i t fumishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety." Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982) (intemal citation omitted). Here, during his stay in the lMU, Singh could use the phone in case o f an emergency o r for legal matters. Moreover, while Singh h a d to eat meals i n his cell, and had limits o n the amount o f personal items he could keep, those limits did not deprive him o f basic human needs and were only temporary. Accordingly, the limits o n phone use, leaving the cell for meals, and personal property do not constitute Eighth Amendment violations. See Hoptowit, 682 F .2d at 1246; Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982) (prisoners i n maximum security have no right to unlimited telephone use). E. Summary

In summary, the conditions o f confinement Singh complains o f do not violate the Eighth Amendment. As a result, the court should grant defendants' motion for summmy judgment o n p l a i n t i f f s Eight Amendment claims. Moreover, after reading the evidence in the light most favorable to Singh, he has nonetheless failed to establish that defendants violated his constitutional rights in any respect. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity o n each o f Singh's claims.

Page 14 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCLUSION The defendants' motion for summary j u d g m e n t (#34) should be granted. P l a i n t i f f s motion to compel (#42) should be denied as moot. A j u d g m e n t should be prepared accordingly. SCHEDULING O R D E R The above Findings and Recommendation will be r e f e n e d to a United States District Judge for review. Objections, i f a n y , are due February 10, 2009. I f n o objections are filed, review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. I f objections are filed, a response to the objections is due fourteen days after the date the objections are filed and the review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement o n that date. NOTICE A party's failure to timely file objections to any o f t h e s e findings will be considered a waiver o f that party's r i g h t t o de novo consideration o f the factual issues addressed herein and will constitute a waiver o f the patty's right to review o f the findings o f fact in any order or j u d g m e n t entered by a d i s t r i c t j u d g e . T h e s e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n are n o t i m m e d i a t e l y a p p e a l a b l e t o t h e N i n t h Circuit Court o f Appeals. Any notice o f appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) o f the Federal Rules o f Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry o f judgment.

D a t e d t h i s 2 7 t h d a y o f J a n u a r y , 2009.

Honorable P a u l P a p a k U n i t e d States M a g i s t r a t e Judge

Page 15 - FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION