(PC) Felton Guillory aka Shuaibe v. James Tilton, et al., No. 1:2007cv00775 - Document 76 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 63 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying 71 73 Motions signed by District Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 09/27/2011. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Felton Guillory aka Shuaibe v. James Tilton, et al. Doc. 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Felton Guillory, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 James E. Tilton, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-07-0775-ROS (PC) ORDER 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 17 63).1 For the reasons below, the motion will be granted. The case will proceed to trial on 18 Plaintiff’s remaining claims. BACKGROUND 19 20 The Parties 21 Plaintiff Felton Guillory is a prisoner in custody with the California Department of 22 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (Doc. 64, ¶ 1). Defendant Johnson is retired, but 23 Johnson was a lieutenant at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, 24 California at all times relevant to this lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 3-4). Johnson did not work on April 25 14 or 15, 2006. (Id., ¶ 5). Defendant Granillo is a correctional officer at CCI, and worked 26 27 1 28 The remaining defendants are Granillo, Johnson, Montano and Snyder (collectively, “Defendants”). Dockets.Justia.com 1 from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on all days relevant to this lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 6-8). Defendant Montano 2 is a sergeant at CCI, but at all relevant times he was a correctional officer at CCI. (Id., ¶ 9). 3 Montano stopped working at 10 p.m. on April 14, 2006, and did not work on April 15 4 through 17, 2006. (Id., ¶ 10-11). Defendant Snyder was a correctional officer at CCI and 5 worked from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. on all days relevant to this lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 12-13). 6 Plaintiff’s Transfer 7 On April 14, 2006, Plaintiff was charged with participating in a battery on a peace 8 officer at California State Prison Los Angeles (“LAC”). (Id., ¶ 14). Plaintiff was deemed 9 a threat to the safety of “self and others,” and given an Administrative Segregation Unit 10 Placement Notice. (Id., ¶ 15). Lieutenant R. Clemons ordered Plaintiff be transferred from 11 LAC to CCI and placed in Administrative Segregation, and remain there until an institutional 12 classification committee evaluated his program and housing needs. (Id., ¶ 16). Defendants 13 played no role in the decision to place or retain Plaintiff in Administrative Segregation. (Id., 14 ¶ 18). Defendants did not believe, and did not have reason to believe, Plaintiff’s assignment 15 was inappropriate. 16 At approximately 8:30 p.m. on April 14, 2006, Defendant Snyder escorted Plaintiff 17 from Receiving and Release to Building Six where the Administrative Segregation Unit is 18 located. (Id., ¶ 22). The temperature was 47 or 48 degrees Fahrenheit. (Id., ¶ 23). Plaintiff 19 does not recall how long the escort took, but it covered approximately 120 yards and would 20 routinely take about six minutes. (Id., ¶ 25-30). An inmate in Administrative Segregation 21 does not typically have a jumpsuit. (Id., ¶ 31). If necessary, additional clothing such as a 22 jumpsuit may be provided to a prisoner during escort, but correctional staff members prefer 23 not to provide additional clothing for security reasons. (Id., ¶ 33). Inmates often refuse to 24 comply with orders, and Defendant Snyder was concerned that an inmate may refuse to 25 relinquish a jumpsuit after transfer. (Id., ¶ 34-35). This would necessitate a cell extraction 26 or other calculated force. (Id., ¶ 35). The risk of injury associated with such force is greater 27 than exposing an inmate to external temperatures for a few minutes during transfer. (Id.). 28 As such, most inmates are transported to Administrative Segregation without a jumpsuit or -2- 1 additional clothing. (Id.). Defendant Snyder did not believe additional clothing was 2 necessary during the April 14, 2006 escort. (Id., ¶ 36). Plaintiff does not know who escorted 3 him to the Administrative Segregation Unit on April 14, 2006. (Id., ¶ 21). 4 Sandbags 5 Sandbags are sometimes placed in front of cell doors to prevent inmates from passing 6 things to one another, such as weapons, contraband or notes. (Id., ¶ 37). 7 Meals 8 Inmates in Administrative Segregation are provided three meals per day. (Id., ¶ 39). 9 The meals and trash are collected approximately one hour after they are delivered, except for 10 the sack lunch and lunch trash which is collected at dinner. (Id.). Plaintiff does not know 11 the identity of anyone who delivered meals to his housing unit from April 15 through 21, 12 2006. (Id., ¶ 40). 13 On April 15, 2006 breakfast and lunch were delivered by a non-defendant correctional 14 staff member who failed to stop at Plaintiff’s cell. (Id., ¶ 41). Plaintiff believed his cellmate 15 inadvertently caused his cell to be skipped, so Plaintiff did not complain about missing meals 16 until 5 p.m. at the earliest. (Id., ¶ 42). Plaintiff did not receive dinner on April 15, 2006, or 17 breakfast or lunch on April 16, 2006. (Id., ¶ 43). His first meal was at 6 p.m. on April 16, 18 2006. (Id., ¶ 44). Defendants Granillo, Johnson, Montano and Snyder are not aware of 19 anyone who refused to provide Plaintiff with any meals, and did not know Plaintiff was 20 refused meals. (Id., ¶ 45-46). Plaintiff did not suffer any serious medical effect from the 21 missed meals. (Id., ¶ 47-48). 22 Between April 17 and 21, 2006 the size of Plaintiff’s breakfast and dinner were 23 smaller than he was accustomed to. (Id., ¶ 51). CDCR dieticians are responsible for 24 ensuring every prison prepares and serves meals that meet daily nutritional standards. (Id., 25 ¶ 57). CDCR’s meal plans include instructions regarding serving size. (Id., ¶ 58). CDCR’s 26 meal plan provided inmates with an average of 2943 calories per day. (Id., ¶ 61). Meals are 27 served from large containers with serving utensils that are uniform in size. (Id., ¶ 59). 28 Inmates serve most of the meals in prison, and they regularly exceed CDCR’s serving sizes. -3- 1 (Id., ¶ 64). A “normal [meal] tray” contained “more than a man could eat.” (Id., ¶ 65) 2 Defendants Granillo, Montano and Snyder did not believe or have reason to believe CDCR’s 3 meal plans were too small. (Id., ¶ 66). New Administrative Segregation inmates often 4 complained CDCR’s serving sizes were too small. (Id., ¶ 66). 5 Uneaten Food 6 Correctional staff are authorized to conduct random cell searches. (Id., ¶ 67); Cal. 7 Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3287 (2006). Due to increased security risk in the unit, correctional 8 staff frequently search cells in Administrative Segregation. (Doc. 64, ¶ 68). Inmates are not 9 allowed to keep uneaten food in their cell. (Id., ¶ 69). Uneaten food poses a threat to the 10 sanitation of a cell and the entire housing unit, and can lead to odor, disease and pest 11 infestations. (Id., ¶ 70). During cell searches, correctional staff regularly confiscate uneaten 12 food. (Id., ¶ 71). 13 However, inmates may request a special religious diet that can exempt an inmate from 14 normal collection times for uneaten food. (Id., ¶ 72-73). Each year, the prison approves fasts 15 during the religious holiday of Ramadan. (Id., ¶ 72). Under Department Operation Manual 16 (“DOM”) section 54080.13 inmates may request a special religious diet at least 30 days in 17 advance. (Id., ¶ 73). The request must be made in writing to the chaplain, who decides 18 whether to sponsor the request and pass it to supervisory prison officials to determine 19 whether the request is feasible and appropriate. (Id.). If approved, inmates are provided 20 paperwork indicating their eligibility and correctional staff are provided a list and 21 instructions for the special program. (Id., ¶ 73-74). 22 Plaintiff fasted during the Ramadan, and Plaintiff was on an approved list of 23 participants for fasting. (Id., ¶ 75). However, Plaintiff did not apply for permission to keep 24 uneaten food in his cell during a fast, and he did not have paperwork exempting him from 25 normal collection of uneaten food. (Id., ¶ 77). Defendants Johnson and Granillo played no 26 role in processing requests for special religious diet programs. (Id., ¶ 78). Defendant 27 Granillo did not have any reason to believe Plaintiff was exempt from uneaten food 28 collection, and confiscated Plaintiff’s uneaten food pursuant to regular policy. (Id., ¶ 79-81). -4- 1 Defendant Johnson did not have any reason to believe Granillo’s conduct was improper 2 because Plaintiff was not exempt from the uneaten food collection policy. (Id., ¶ 83). 3 Toilet Paper and Soap 4 The amounts and type of property permitted in the Administrative Segregation Unit 5 are restricted. (Id., ¶ 84-85). Defendants Granillo, Montano and Snyder always issued 6 inmates toilet paper and soap upon their arrival, and have never observed a correctional staff 7 member fail to provide an inmate with toilet paper or soap upon arrival. (Id., ¶ 87). 8 Defendants Granillo, Johnson, Montano and Snyder did not believe, or have reason to 9 believe, Plaintiff did not have toilet paper or soap. (Id., ¶ 88-91). Administrative 10 Segregation inmates are allowed less property than general population inmates, so 11 Defendants Granillo, Montano and Snyder frequently hear generalized complaints such as, 12 “We don’t have anything in here.” (Id., ¶ 92). When they investigate those complaints, they 13 discover the inmates have been issued necessary property, but are dissatisfied with what they 14 are allowed to possess in Administrative Segregation. (Id., ¶ 92). As such, upon hearing a 15 general complaint such as “I don’t have anything in here,” Defendants Granillo, Montano and 16 Snyder would not have reason to believe an inmate lacks toilet paper and soap unless 17 something was specifically said about toilet paper or soap. (Id., ¶ 93). Plaintiff stated to 18 Defendants Snyder and Granillo, “We ain’t got nothing. Why you guys not giving us 19 anything?” (Id., ¶ 96). Before April 16, 2006, Plaintiff did not tell Defendants Snyder, 20 Granillo, Montano or Johnson that he did not have toilet paper. (Id., ¶ 95). On April 16, 21 2006, Plaintiff received toilet paper and soap. (Id., ¶ 94). Between April 14 and 16, 2006, 22 Plaintiff had one bowel movement and had to wash his hands with water. (Id., ¶ 97-98). 23 Mattress 24 Administrative Segregation inmates occasionally destroy their mattresses. (Id., ¶ 99). 25 Extra mattresses are typically stored in the prison laundry. (Id.). The laundry is run by non- 26 correctional staff employees who have keys to the building. (Id., ¶ 100). On Friday April 27 14, 2006, Defendant Montano learned the Administrative Segregation Unit was running low 28 on mattresses. (Id., ¶ 101-102). Defendant Montano contacted laundry, but they were -5- 1 closed. (Id., ¶ 103). Montano searched other cells looking for unused mattresses. (Id.). 2 Montano was then informed the Administrative Segregation Unit was going to receive 3 additional inmates. (Id., ¶ 104). Montano advised his supervisor, Sergeant Villanueva, of 4 the mattress shortage, and Villanueva told Montano to also search all of Building Six and that 5 he would try to get laundry reopened before Monday April 17, 2006. (Id., ¶ 105). Montano 6 searched Building Six with another officer, but did not locate any available mattresses. (Id., 7 ¶ 106). Villanueva informed Montano there was no laundry access, and Montano was not 8 aware of any other means of obtaining additional mattresses. (Id., ¶ 107-109). On April 14 9 through 16, 2006, Plaintiff shared one mattress with his cellmate. (Id., ¶ 110). On Monday 10 April 17, 2006, a second mattress and sheets were placed in Plaintiff’s cell. (Id., ¶ 111). 11 Communications 12 Plaintiff alleges when he discussed the amount of property in his cell with Granillo, 13 Granillo responded, “You know what you Muslims are here for. Stop bitching.” (Id., ¶ 112). 14 The conversation lasted only a few seconds. (Id.). Defendants Snyder and Montano did not 15 hear Granillo make this statement. (Id., ¶ 113). When Plaintiff discussed the amount of 16 property in his cell with Snyder, Snyder calmly responded, “The sergeant said nothing comes 17 in or out of the cell.” (Id., ¶ 114). This conversation also lasted only a few seconds. (Id.). 18 Between April 14 and 19, 2006, Defendant Johnson did not communicate with Plaintiff, and 19 Johnson was not aware of anyone mistreating Plaintiff, escorting Plaintiff, failing to provide 20 Plaintiff with a meal, mattress, bedding, clothing, toilet paper, or soap. (Id., ¶ 117-118). On 21 April 20, 2006, Plaintiff complained to Johnson that property was missing from his cell. (Id., 22 ¶ 119). Immediately after speaking with Johnson, Plaintiff received a toothbrush, toothpaste, 23 eating utensils and writing materials. (Id., ¶ 120). 24 25 ANALYSIS A. Summary Judgment Standard 26 Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material 27 fact” and “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c). The 28 evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed, and all reasonable inferences drawn in -6- 1 its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-56 (1986). “[A] party seeking 2 summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of 3 the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers 4 to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it 5 believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. 6 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal citations omitted). However, if the non-moving 7 party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party’s summary judgment motion need 8 only highlight the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party’s claims. See 9 Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 10 323-25). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party who must produce evidence 11 sustaining a genuine issue of disputed material fact. Id. 12 B. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 13 Defendants Granillo, Johnson, Montano and Snyder move for summary judgment on 14 Plaintiff’s claims except (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Snyder regarding 15 the amount of clothing and sheets Plaintiff possessed between April 15 and April 16, 2006; 16 and (2) Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims against Granillo regarding the amount 17 of clothing and sheets Plaintiff possessed between April 14 and April 16, 2006. The Court 18 will address each claim on which Defendants move for summary judgment. 19 1. 20 The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This imposes a duty 21 on prison officials to provide basic life necessities such as food, clothing, shelter and 22 sanitation. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 23 832 (1994). The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 24 832. To establish an Eighth Amendment violation against a prison official, a plaintiff must 25 show: (1) the deprivation was objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official had 26 a sufficiently culpable state of mind, as where the offending conduct is unnecessary and 27 wanton. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Eighth Amendment Claims 28 -7- 1 To satisfy the first prong, a plaintiff must show he faced a substantial risk of serious 2 harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-36. A court must consider the circumstances, nature and 3 duration of the deprivation to determine whether a deprivation is sufficiently serious. Id. 4 The more basic the need, the shorter time it may be withheld. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 5 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). Temporary deprivations of sanitation are insufficient to state an 6 Eighth Amendment claim. Compare Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978) (“A 7 filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of ‘grue[l]’ might be tolerable for a few days and 8 intolerably cruel for weeks or months.”) and Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 269 (8th Cir. 9 1996) (four-day exposure to raw sewage from overflowing toilet in cell not cognizable 10 because it was a “de minimis imposition and thus [did] not implicate constitutional 11 concerns”) with Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eighth 12 Amendment violation cognizable where serious health hazards lasted nine months, including 13 inoperable toilets, insect infestations in stagnant pools of water and a lack of cold water when 14 temperatures were above 100 degrees). 15 To satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must demonstrate the defendants intentionally 16 acted with deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 17 294, 302-03 (1991). 18 indifference. Farmer 511 U.S. at 835-36; Estelle v. Gamble, 829 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To 19 be liable for an Eighth Amendment violation, the prison official must know of and disregard 20 an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The official must be 21 aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 22 harm exists, and he must also draw that inference. Id. 23 Negligence or gross negligence does not constitute deliberate a. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims Regarding Meals 24 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by depriving him 25 of five meals on April 15 and April 16, 2006. Plaintiff’s claim fails for two reasons. First, 26 Plaintiff has not created a genuine issue of material fact that Defendants Montano, Johnson, 27 Granillo or Snyder deprived him of food. Montano did not work either day. Johnson did not 28 work April 15 and Plaintiff did not inform Johnson of the problem on April 16. Granillo and -8- 1 Snyder were working, but were not responsible for delivering Plaintiff’s meals, and they did 2 not believe and were not informed anyone refused to provide Plaintiff with meals. Second, 3 prisons must provide inmates with food, but to show deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s 4 dietary needs, Plaintiff must show his health was in immediate danger or his health suffered 5 as a result of the lack of food. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992); Berry 6 v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 506-08 (5th Cir. 1999) (deprivation of food is cruel and unusual 7 punishment only if it denies minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, which depends 8 on duration of deprivation). Plaintiff has not shown that missing five meals placed his health 9 in immediate danger or that his health suffered from the lack of food. 10 Plaintiff also alleges he received small serving sizes for breakfast and dinner between 11 April 16 and April 21, 2006. Again, Plaintiff’s claims fail for two reasons. First, Plaintiff 12 has presented no evidence these Defendants delivered Plaintiff’s meals between April 16 and 13 April 21, 2006. Dieticians, not Defendants, prepared the menus. Second, prison meals 14 provided 2943 calories per day. Inmates in general population were accustomed to receiving 15 excess servings. Administrative Segregation inmates often complained the meals were too 16 small, and subsequent investigations revealed the servicing sizes were sufficient for 17 nutritional needs. Plaintiff concedes he was accustomed to servings that were “more than 18 a man could eat,” and he could not determine the number of calories he was provided 19 between April 16 and April 21, 2006. Plaintiff has not demonstrated his health was impacted 20 or in immediate danger. 21 22 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to his Eighth Amendment claim regarding his meals. 23 b. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Regarding the Mattress 24 Plaintiff alleges he shared a mattress with his cellmate between April 14 and April 16, 25 2006. Plaintiff has not shown he faced a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. 26 at 835-36. The deprivation was brief. The failure to provide a mattress for three nights does 27 not violate the Eighth Amendment. Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 28 1988) (sleeping on the floor without a mattress for a night does not state an Eight -9- 1 Amendment violation) vacated on other grounds by 493 U.S. 801 (1989); Wilson v. Schomig, 2 863 F.Supp. 789, 794-95 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (without a showing of physical harm, no Eighth 3 Amendment claim for inmate forced to sleep on filthy mattress); Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 4 1021, 1026-28 (3d Cir. 1988) sleeping on dirty mattress on floor did not state Eighth 5 Amendment claim). Nor has Plaintiff shown Defendants intentionally acted with deliberate 6 indifference to the substantial risk of harm. As discussed above, Johnson played no role in 7 the mattress allegations. As to the remaining Defendants, they searched for a mattress but 8 could not locate one until laundry opened the next business day. 9 demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to his Eighth Amendment claim regarding 10 Plaintiff has not the mattress. 11 c. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Regarding Property in His Cell 12 Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied toilet 13 paper and soap for two days, and a toothbrush for a week. Defendants were not responsible 14 for issuing these hygiene items upon Plaintiff’s arrival. Non-defendant officers were 15 responsible for issuing such items upon Plaintiff’s arrival. Defendants were not aware of 16 another instance in which an inmate was not issued hygiene items. Defendants assumed 17 Plaintiff was issued hygiene items. Plaintiff did not inform Defendants that he was without 18 these hygiene items. Instead, Plaintiff made general statements, such as “We ain’t got 19 nothing.” Given that Administrative Segregation inmates are permitted less property than 20 general population inmates, this is a common generalized complaint, and did not alert 21 Defendants to the missing hygiene items. 22 To be liable for an Eighth Amendment violation, the prison official must know of and 23 disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The official 24 must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 25 serious harm exists, and he must also draw that inference. Id. Defendants were without facts 26 to draw the inference, and did not draw the inference, that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk 27 of serious harm. 28 - 10 - 1 Moreover, courts have found the temporary deprivation of hygiene items does not 2 satisfy the first component of an Eighth Amendment claim that the deprivation was 3 objectively, sufficiently serious. Harris v. Flemming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (7th Cir. 4 1988) (no constitutional violation where prison officials failed to provide inmate with toilet 5 paper for five days, and soap, toothbrush and toothpaste for ten days). 6 7 8 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to his Eighth Amendment claim regarding the lack of hygiene items in his cell. d. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Regarding Sandbag 9 Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when a sandbag was 10 placed in front of his cell door to prevent other inmates from passing him food or hygiene 11 items. Plaintiff’s claim fails for two reasons. First, Plaintiff’s claims for deprivation of food 12 and hygiene items do not survive summary judgment. Therefore, preventing other inmates 13 from providing Plaintiff food or hygiene items cannot constitute an Eighth Amendment 14 violation. Second, sandbags are regularly used to prevent inmates from passing weapons, 15 contraband and notes. Plaintiff’s allegation that Granillo used the sandbag to restrict food 16 or hygiene items is unsubstantiated and conclusory. Plaintiff was in Administrative 17 Segregation because of his participation in a battery. An investigation was ongoing, and the 18 sandbag was used for the legitimate penological objective of preserving the integrity of the 19 investigation. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to his Eighth 20 Amendment claim regarding the sandbag. 21 e. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Regarding the Transfer 22 Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied 23 additional clothing during his transfer to the Administrative Segregation Unit. The record 24 shows inmates in Administrative Segregation do not possess jumpsuits; inmates frequently 25 refuse to comply with orders; if inmates are provided jumpsuits they may refuse to relinquish 26 the jumpsuit, in which case officers must perform a cell extraction; and calculated force 27 would expose the inmate and correctional staff to greater risk of harm than six to ten minutes 28 of exposure to forty-seven degree weather. (Doc. 64, ¶ 21-35). Plaintiff has not presented - 11 - 1 evidence that the alleged deprivation was objectively, sufficiently serious, or the prison 2 official had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a 3 genuine issue of material fact as to his Eighth Amendment claim regarding the escort 4 transfer. 5 2. 6 First Amendment Claims a. Retaliation 7 For each of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, it appears Plaintiff alleges a 8 corresponding retaliation claim under the First Amendment. 9 Amendment retaliation claim, Plaintiff must show: (1) prison officials took adverse action 10 against him; (2) the adverse action was taken because he engaged in protected conduct; (3) 11 the adverse action chilled his First Amendment rights; and (4) the adverse action did not 12 serve a legitimate penological purpose. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 13 2005). To prevail on a First 14 With one exception, discussed below, Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims 15 fail because he failed to: (1) connect these Defendants to the alleged adverse action, and (2) 16 present any evidence Defendants took any action based on Plaintiff’s religion. See May v. 17 Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980) (defendant’s conduct must cause the deprivation 18 of a plaintiff’s constitutional rights); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) 19 (causation is “individualized and focus[es] on the duties and responsibilities of each 20 individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional 21 deprivation.”). Further, as discussed above, with the exception of the deprivation of hygiene 22 items,2 the alleged adverse actions served legitimate penological purposes. 23 The lone exception is Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Granillo for deprivation of 24 clothing and bedding. Plaintiff supports this claim with Granillo’s statement, “You know 25 what you Muslims are here for. Stop bitching.” (Id., ¶ 112). As such, Granillo indicated 26 2 27 28 As discussed above, Plaintiff has not connected these Defendants to the deprivation of hygiene items. Plaintiff received hygiene items upon telling these Defendants what he was missing. - 12 - 1 some of his conduct was based upon Plaintiff’s religion, and Plaintiff’s retaliation claim 2 against Granillo for deprivation of clothing and bedding will go to trial.3 (Id.). 3 Plaintiff also argues Snyder’s conduct was similar to Granillo’s conduct. However, 4 Plaintiff has not presented any evidence Snyder took any action based on Plaintiff’s religion. 5 In contrast to Granillo, Snyder stated, “The sergeant says nothing comes in or out of this 6 cell.” (Doc. 64, ¶ 114). There is no evidence Snyder’s motivations related to Plaintiff’s 7 religion. (Doc. 64, ¶ 114). b. Free Exercise 8 9 Plaintiff alleges his right to exercise his religion was violated when Granillo collected 10 Plaintiff’s uneaten food and Johnson failed to intervene upon learning of Granillo’s conduct 11 through the prison grievance process. Prison policy, specifically Department Operation 12 Manual section 54080.13, requires inmates to seek prior approval for a special religious diet 13 program. Plaintiff did not have permission to possess uneaten food. Defendant Granillo 14 confiscated Plaintiff’s uneaten food pursuant to policy. 15 The First Amendment guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion. “The free 16 exercise right, however, is necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration, and may be 17 curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain prison security.” 18 O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). To establish a violation of the free exercise 19 clause, a prisoner must show the defendants prevented him from engaging in conduct 20 mandated by his faith without justification reasonably related to a legitimate penological 21 interest. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 22 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). The burden is on the prison officials to prove the restriction of the 23 prisoner’s religious exercise was reasonably related to a legitimate penological purpose. 24 Ashelman v. Wawzaszek, 111 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 1997). 25 Under Turner, courts evaluate four factors. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. The first factor 26 is whether there is a logical connection between the act and a legitimate government interest. 27 28 3 Defendant Granillo did not move for summary judgment on this retaliation claim. - 13 - 1 The first factor favors Defendants because removing uneaten food serves the legitimate 2 government interest of guarding against pests, disease, odors, contraband and notes. The 3 second factor is whether Plaintiff had alternative means to practice his religion. Here, not 4 only could Plaintiff pray and fast, he could also apply to keep his uneaten food in his cell for 5 an extended period of time during a religious holiday. The second factor favors Defendants. 6 The third factor is the impact the accommodation sought by Plaintiff will have on prison 7 officials, prison resources and other inmates. Plaintiff did not apply to keep his uneaten food 8 for an extended time. Instead, Plaintiff argues prisoners should not be required to obtain 9 prior approval to keep their uneaten food longer. However, Plaintiff’s proposal would 10 require correctional staff to make on-the-spot determinations on a daily basis. The formal 11 application process allows for a more measured, consistent application of prison policy. The 12 third factor favors Defendants. The fourth factor is whether there are ready alternatives to 13 the prison’s current policy that would provide the sought after accommodation at de minimis 14 cost. Again, the prison has a procedure in place. Plaintiff chose not to avail himself of this 15 process. The fourth factor favors Defendants, as well. Collecting Plaintiff’s uneaten food 16 did not violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. 17 3. 18 Plaintiff alleges his Due Process rights were violated when prison officials housed him 19 in the Administrative Segregation Unit upon finding Plaintiff posed a threat to “self and 20 others.” First, Defendants played no role in the decision to place or retain Plaintiff in 21 Administrative Segregation. (Doc. 64, ¶ 14-19). As such, Plaintiff’s claim fails because he 22 has not connected specific defendants to the alleged deprivation of rights. Ivey v. Bd. of 23 Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and conclusory 24 allegations that official personnel were involved in a civil rights violation are insufficient to 25 support a claim under section 1983); see also May, 633 F.2d at167 (defendant’s conduct must 26 cause the deprivation of a plaintiff’s constitutional rights); Leer, 844 F.2d at 633 (causation 27 is “individualized and focus[es] on the duties and responsibilities of each individual 28 defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.”). No Right to Hearing - 14 - 1 Second, prison officials have broad administrative authority over the prison’s they manage. 2 Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983). Administrative confinement is the type of 3 administrative action that is frequently necessary to the operation of prisons. Id. at 468. 4 Plaintiff has not set forth evidence that any of these Defendants abused their authority to use 5 administrative segregation to manage the prison. 6 4. 7 Plaintiff makes vague and conclusory allegations that Defendants committed a 8 conspiracy. Plaintiff has not presented any specific facts to support his claim that Defendants 9 entered into a conspiracy. Allegations of conspiracy must be pled with specificity and 10 support a meeting of the minds. Manis v. Sterling, 862 F.2d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1988); Karim- 11 Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988); Fonda v. Gray, 707 12 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has failed to allege “an agreement or meeting of the 13 minds,” and such vague and conclusory allegations will “not support a claim for violation 14 of his constitutional rights under § 1983.” Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 F.2d 15 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. Plaintiff’s Conspiracy Claim 16 5. 17 Plaintiff seeks emotional or mental distress damages. “No Federal civil action may 18 be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison or other correctional facility for mental or 19 emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 20 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The physical injury requirement does not bar a suit for a constitutional 21 violation, but does bar a claim for mental and emotional injuries. Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 22 623, 690 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has not alleged physical injury. Therefore, his claims for 23 emotional or mental distress damages fail. 24 C. Plaintiff’s Emotional or Mental Distress Damages Plaintiff’s “Motion in Opposition” 25 Although titled a motion, “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion in Opposition to 26 Defendants’ Summary Judgment” (Doc. 71) is actually just a response in opposition to 27 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. As such, Plaintiff’s “motion” at Docket 71 will 28 be denied. - 15 - 1 D. Plaintiff’s Motion To Submit Weather Report 2 Plaintiff’s “Notice of Motion an[d] Motion for Plaintiff to Submit the Weather 3 Report” (Doc. 73) asks the Court to consider a printout from a Website called Weather 4 Underground for April 14, 2006, which shows the high and low temperatures for Tehachapi, 5 CA. Plaintiff did not lay any foundation for the Weather Underground report. Further, 6 Plaintiff’s evidence is irrelevant. Defendants submitted a statement of facts with evidence 7 that Plaintiff was transferred at 8:30 p.m. on April 14, 2006, and the temperature between 7 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. on that date was between 47 and 48 degrees. (Doc. 64 ¶¶ 22-23). The 9 Weather Underground report states the daily high was 63 and the low was 37. Plaintiff 10 makes no effort to establish what time he was transferred or what the temperature was when 11 he was transferred. The Weather Underground report does not refute Defendants’ evidence. 12 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied for lack of foundation and relevance. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s motion (Doc. 63) is GRANTED. 15 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 71) is DENIED. 16 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 73) is DENIED. 17 DATED this 27th day of September, 2011. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 16 -

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.