(PC) Jose Luis Buenrostro v. Sahota et al, No. 1:2008cv00636 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 29 36 39 Motions signed by District Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 09/26/2011. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jose Luis Buenrostro v. Sahota et al Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Jose Luis Buenrostro, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 M. Sahota, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-08-636-ROS ORDER 15 16 17 18 Defendants Mukhtiar Sahota and Angela Morris seek summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. BACKGROUND 19 20 Plaintiff Jose Luis Buenrostro is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of 21 Prisons. At all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff was housed at the United States 22 Penitentiary at Atwater, California (“USP Atwater”). All inmates at USP Atwater are 23 required to work if they are medically able. The available work assignments include 24 landscaping, building maintenance, food service, and positions at the UNICOR1 electronics 25 recycling plant. The UNICOR plant is a separately secured area of USP Atwater and inmates 26 pass through security screening when they arrive for work and when they leave. Inmates 27 28 1 UNICOR is the trade name of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. Dockets.Justia.com 1 assigned to the plant perform a variety of functions such as dismantling old electronics into 2 their component parts so those parts can be recycled. Inmates are paid pursuant to an hourly 3 wage scale which ranges from a low known as “Fifth Grade” to a high known as “First 4 Grade.” Inmates begin at Fifth Grade and can improve to First Grade based on longevity and 5 good performance. 6 Inmates assigned to the plant work with components that are valuable contraband 7 within the general USP Atwater population. Inmates often attempt to smuggle parts from the 8 plant into the general populace. Many smuggling attempts consist of an inmate bundling 9 small components together to allow for easier concealment and transportation. At all 10 relevant times, Defendants Sahota and Morris were Correctional Officers assigned to the 11 plant as Recycling Factory Technicians. 12 Plaintiff began working at the plant in May 2005. In April 2006, Plaintiff resigned 13 from his position. Plaintiff returned to the plant in May 2007. Upon his return, Plaintiff 14 started at Fifth Grade. Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance on June 13, 2007, arguing 15 he should have been allowed to return at the higher grade he obtained during his previous 16 stint at the plant. The sequence of events following that grievance is disputed by the parties. 17 According to Defendants, on July 2, 2007, Defendant Sahota conducted an inspection 18 of Plaintiff’s work area. In that work area, Defendant Sahota found two speakers, six 19 magnets, and eight small electric motors wrapped in plastic. There was no legitimate reason 20 for these items to be in Plaintiff’s work area and there was no legitimate reason for the items 21 to be wrapped together. Sahota prepared a written memorandum to the Factory Manager and 22 issued a verbal warning to Plaintiff. On August 22, 2007, Defendant Sahota conducted 23 another inspection of Plaintiff’s work area and found two speakers, six small electric motors, 24 one on/off switch, one small light, and some copper wire. These items were wrapped in 25 plastic and concealed beneath other equipment. As a result of this discovery, Plaintiff was 26 removed from his work assignment at the plant. 27 According to Plaintiff, Defendant Sahota did not locate contraband in his work area 28 on July 2, 2007, did not issue him a verbal warning, and did not locate contraband in his -2- 1 work area on August 2, 2007. Instead, all of these events are total fabrications by Defendant 2 Sahota. Plaintiff believes Defendant Sahota fabricated these events in retaliation for Plaintiff 3 filing a grievance regarding his pay. 4 Despite being dismissed from the plant in 2007, Plaintiff obtained reassignment to the 5 plant in May 2008. Defendant Morris, who at that time was responsible for assigning 6 inmates to particular duties, assigned Plaintiff to work at the copper cleaning station. The 7 copper cleaning station is one of the less desirable assignments at the plant. Defendant 8 Morris alleges Plaintiff received this assignment simply “because the plant needed a worker 9 at that station at the time.” (Doc. 29-1 at 10). Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendant 10 Morris created the vacancy at the copper cleaning station by transferring the inmate 11 occupying the position at that time just so she could place Plaintiff there “as reprisal for filing 12 grievances.” (Doc. 32 at 10). 13 Plaintiff eventually filed suit against Defendants Sahota and Morris, asserting claims 14 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.2 The parties proceeded with discovery 15 and Defendants now seek summary judgment. According to Defendant Sahota, the discovery 16 of contraband at Plaintiff’s work station provided a legitimate correctional reason for 17 Plaintiff’s dismissal from his employment at the plant. And according to Defendant Morris, 18 Plaintiff had no right to a particular work assignment upon his return to the plant and his 19 assignment to the copper cleaning station was permissible. Plaintiff filed an opposition 20 arguing genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding the underlying events and the 21 motivation for Defendants’ actions. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff originally asserted a variety of other claims but those claims were previously dismissed. -3- 1 ANALYSIS 2 I. Standard For Summary Judgment 3 Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine 4 dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must view the facts and 5 draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary 6 judgment motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 7 (1986) (inferences drawn must be reasonable in light of competing inferences). If the non- 8 moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party’s summary judgment 9 motion need only highlight the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party’s 10 claims. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 II. Defendant Sahota Is Not Entitled To Summary Judgment 12 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five 13 basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate 14 (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 15 inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 16 advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 17 2005). Defendant Sahota seeks summary judgment by arguing Plaintiff cannot establish he 18 was dismissed from employment at the plant “because of” the grievance he filed or that 19 Plaintiff’s dismissal “lacked any correctional purpose.” (Doc. 29-1 at 14). Viewing the 20 evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff requires Defendant Sahota’s motion be 21 denied. 22 According to Plaintiff’s evidence, Defendant Sahota did not find any contraband at 23 Plaintiff’s work station on July 2, 2007 or on August 2, 2007. Instead, Defendant Sahota 24 wanted to retaliate against Plaintiff for filing grievances so he fabricated events and records 25 to create a basis for dismissing Plaintiff from his employment. If Plaintiff’s version of events 26 is believed (i.e., contraband was never located at Plaintiff’s work station), Defendant Sahota 27 had no basis to dismiss Plaintiff. Alternatively, if Defendant Sahota’s version of events is 28 believed, Plaintiff’s claim fails. At summary judgment the Court cannot “make credibility -4- 1 determinations or weigh conflicting evidence.” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 2 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). A reasonable fact finder could accept Plaintiff’s version of events 3 and conclude Plaintiff’s dismissal was “because of” his grievance and his dismissal did not 4 advance a legitimate goal. Thus, summary judgment must be denied.3 5 III. Defendant Morris Is Not Entitled To Summary Judgment 6 Plaintiff claims Defendant Morris retaliated against him by assigning him to the 7 copper cleaning station upon his return to the plant in May 2008. Defendant Morris seeks 8 summary judgment by arguing Plaintiff had no right to a particular work assignment and his 9 assignment was permissible. Thus, Defendant Morris argues Plaintiff cannot prove his work 10 assignment was “because of” his grievance activity nor can he establish the work assignment 11 lacked “a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567-68. 12 Plaintiff’s declaration states Defendant Morris assigned him to the copper cleaning 13 station “as reprisal for filing grievances.” (Doc. 34 at 7). Plaintiff also attached declarations 14 by various other inmates indirectly supporting this claim. Those declarations allege 15 Defendants Sahota and Morris threatened retaliation against inmates who submitted 16 grievances. (See, e.g., doc. 34 at 32). This is not direct evidence that Plaintiff’s undesirable 17 work assignment was retaliatory, but it supports such an inference. Easter v. Am. W. 18 Financial, 381 F.3d 948, 959 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment is not appropriate when 19 “contrary inferences may be drawn from the evidence as to material issues”); Thomas v. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Defendant Sahota also argues he is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A government official “is not entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the facts show that the officer’s conduct violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F.3d 1016, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). Given the fundamental factual disagreement regarding the existence of contraband in Plaintiff’s work area, Defendant Sahota is not entitled to qualified immunity. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant Sahota had no basis other than retaliation for dismissing Plaintiff from employment. If true, this constituted a violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. And the “prohibition against retaliatory punishment is clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.” Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Defendant Sahota is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. -5- 1 Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (court must “construe liberally motion papers 2 and pleadings filed by pro se inmates”). There is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding 3 Defendant Morris’ rationale for assigning Plaintiff to the copper cleaning station and 4 summary judgment will be denied.4 5 IV. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Will Be Denied 6 After Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion for summary judgment, 7 Plaintiff filed a “Response to Defendants’ Reply” and a “Second Declaration.” These 8 documents responded to statements in Defendants’ reply. Defendants are correct that these 9 two filings were not authorized and were improper. But the Court did not rely on these 10 filings when ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Thus, the motion to strike will be 11 denied as moot. 12 V. Plaintiff’s Motion Regarding Witness Intimidation 13 Plaintiff seeks an order “directing the Defendants . . . to immediately refrain from 14 witness intimidation on Plaintiff’s witnesses.” (Doc. 36 at 1). According to Plaintiff, a 15 family member of another inmate informed Plaintiff’s family that officers at USP Atwater 16 confronted one of Plaintiff’s witnesses and stated he would be fired from his work 17 assignment if he assisted Plaintiff in prosecuting this suit. This evidence of witness 18 intimidation is multiple levels of hearsay and is not sufficient evidence of improper behavior 19 for the Court to conclude action is needed. The motion will be denied. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Like Defendant Sahota, Defendant Morris also claims she is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant Morris manipulated the work assignments to punish Plaintiff for his protected conduct. If true, these actions violated Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Therefore, qualified immunity does not apply. -6- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29), Motion for Order 3 Directing Defendants to Refrain from Witness Intimidation (Doc. 36), and Motion to Strike 4 (Doc. 39) are DENIED. 5 Dated this 26th day of September, 2011. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
