Arredondo v. Drager
| Decision Date | 14 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-04687-HSG |
| Parties | ALFREDO RAIGOSA ARREDONDO, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS DRAGER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regarding events that took place while he was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison ("PBSP"). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. Docket No. 8 ("FAC") at 11. The Court found that, liberally construed, the first amended complaint stated cognizable claims that PBSP officers Drager and Brunner retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in hunger strikes and filing lawsuits against PBSP staff, in violation of the First Amendment; and were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Docket No. 15 at 2-3.
Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Docket No. 34. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (Docket No. 48), Defendants have filed a reply (Docket No. 50), and Plaintiff has filed a sur-reply (Docket No. 51).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss, and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was incarcerated in PBSP's Security Housing Unit ("SHU"), Facility C, Unit 3, C Pod, Cell 211.2 Docket No. 48 at 17.
On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff commenced a hunger strike to protest his SHU living conditions. FAC at 4-5. On July 10, 2013, Plaintiff was issued a rules violation report ("RVR") for willfully delaying a police officer by participating in a mass hunger strike. Docket No. 1-1 at 17.
On July 12, 2013, Plaintiff suspended his hunger strike. FAC at 6.
On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff resumed his hunger strike. FAC at 6.
On Thursday, August 8, 2013, Plaintiff was again issued a rules violation report ("RVR") for willfully delaying a police officer by participating in a mass hunger strike. Docket No. 1-2 at 16.
That same day, at approximately 4 p.m., Officer Drager yelled loudly into the Unit C3: "Dumbrique 112, Belmudes 212, and Arredondo 211, pack up your property and get ready to move to the Debriefer Unit." Docket No. 48 at 17, 23, and 27. Dumbrique responded, Docket No. 48 at 17, 23, and 27. Officer Drager replied, "That's not what I heard, pack it up!" Docket No. 48 at 17, 23, and 27. Officer Drager spoke loudly enough to be heard in the remaining pods throughout the prison block. Docket No. 48 at 17. Officer Drager denies making these statements. Docket No. 36 ("Drager Decl.") ¶ 5.
Later that day, Officer Drager entered C Pod to pass out mail. Docket No. 48 at 17, 23,and 27. Dumbrique asked why Officer Drager was addressing the inmates at a volume that allowed everyone to hear that Officer Drager was referring to Dumbrique, Belmudes, and Arredondo as debriefers. Docket No. 48 at 17, 23, and 27. Officer Drager responded, Docket No. 48 at 17, 23, and 27. Officer Drager denies making these statements. Drager Decl. ¶ 5.
At that time, Officer Drager was assigned to Unit C3 and his duties included assisting inmates with housing transfers. Drager Decl. ¶ 2. In facilitating a housing transfer, Officer Drager's usual practice was to instruct the inmate to pack his items, give the inmate plastic bags for his property, bring the inmate a pushcart to place his items on, place the inmate in restraints, escort the inmate and his property to the new cell, remove the restraints from the inmate, and remove the inmate's property from the pushcart. Drager Decl. ¶ 6. Officer Drager states that he does not recall facilitating Plaintiff's housing transfer on August 8, 2013. Drager Decl. ¶ 6. Officer Drager states that he was aware that Plaintiff was involved in a hunger strike, but was not aware of any complaints filed by Plaintiff against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") or CDCR employees. Drager Decl. ¶ 5.
In accordance with Officer Drager's orders, Plaintiff packed up his property and moved to Unit C12 on August 8, 2013. FAC at 7. Officers Drager and Brunner had no involvement in the decision to transfer Plaintiff. Docket No. 35 ("Brunner Decl.") ¶ 9; Drager Decl. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff alleges that Unit C12 is the designated "debriefer unit" which houses inmates who are completing the debriefing process, who are also known as prison informants or snitches. FAC at 7 and Docket No. 48 at 23-24 and 28. Plaintiff alleges that prison snitches or informants are targeted for assault by the vast majority of the prison population, and are therefore housed separately for their safety. Docket No. 48 at 24. Defendants claim that PBSP does not have a designated housing unit for debriefing inmates. Docket No. 37 ("Olson Decl.") ¶ 6. Defendants acknowledge that PBSP attempts to separate prison gang affiliates from debriefing inmates by housing them in different pods. Id. ¶ 7. Defendants state that during the 2013 mass inmate hunger strike, certain hunger strike participants were relocated to Unit C12 due to "institutional need." Id.¶ 10. Unit C12 is "within close proximity to program and medical facility in [Facility] C SHU." Id. Plaintiff states that "Unit [C]12 is the furthest from the medical facility." Docket No. 51 at 2.
Plaintiff resumed eating on the evening of August 10, 2013. Docket No. 39 ("Thornton Decl."), Ex. A.
Five other inmates were also moved from Units C3 and C2 to Unit C12 during this same time period. FAC at 9. These inmates — Daniel Treglia, Edward Dumbrique, Antonio Ruiz, Jose Argumendo, and Daniel Belmudes — were involved in the hunger strike. FAC at 9; Docket No. 1-4 at 13-22. These inmates also had a history of litigation against PBSP or CDCR officials. FAC at 9-11.
During the relevant time period, Officer Brunner served as the Unit C12 control booth relief officer on Saturdays and Sundays. Brunner Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4. Officer Brunner's duties consisted of operating the switchboard that which opens and shuts the doors to Unit C12, thereby controlling the movement of inmates and prison staff in and out of Unit C12; and monitoring the activities of inmates and prison staff in Unit C12 though closed circuit televisions and radios. Id. ¶ 2.
On Saturday, August 17, 2013, at approximately 5 p.m., as floor officers were passing out dinner trays, Officer Brunner announced loudly to the other officers: "D Pod is where all the debriefers slash hunger strikers are." FAC at 8 and Docket No. 48 at 17-18, 20, 24, 28, and 32. Plaintiff was housed in D Pod at that time. FAC at 8. Officer Brunner spoke loudly enough to be heard by all inmates in adjacent pods or sections. FAC at 8 and Docket No. 48 at 17-18, 20, 24, 28, and 32. Officer Brunner denies making this statement. Brunner Decl. ¶ 10.
Information identifying the D Pod inmates by name, CDCR number, and photograph is posted outside D Pod and publicly visible. FAC at 8.
The inmates housed on the bottom tier of D Pod — Antonio Ruiz, Jose Argumedo, and Daniel Treglia — immediately called out to Officer Brunner. FAC at 8; Docket No. 48 at 18, 20, 24, 28, and 32. Ruiz, Argumedo, and Treglia asked Officer Brunner about his comment and demanded that Officer Brunner tell the inmates housed in the other C12 pods that they were notdebriefers and that Officer Brunner was just being spiteful. FAC at 8; Docket No. 48 at 18, 20, 24, 28, and 32. Officer Brunner responded, "Take your trays and I'll think about it." FAC at 8; Docket No. 48 at 18, 20, 24, 28, and 32.
The inmates did not take their dinner trays and Officer Brunner did not tell the other inmates housed in C12 that D Pod inmates were not debriefers. FAC at 8. After the dinner tray pickup, Ruiz asked Officer Brunner why he would say something like that about the D Pod inmates when Officer Brunner did not even know them. FAC at 8. Officer Brunner responded that "the captain had all [the D Pod inmates] on 'shit status' for filing lawsuits and being hungerstrike flip-floppers." FAC at 8 and Docket No. 48 at 7. Officer Brunner also said that the D Pod inmates FAC at 8 and Docket No. 48 at 18, 20, 25, 28, and 32.
Plaintiff was housed in Unit C12 from August 8, 2013 to approximately January 15, 2014, when he was moved to Unit C1. Thornton Decl. ¶ 7. Between August 8, 2013, when Plaintiff was transferred to Unit C12, to October 21, 2014, the date Plaintiff initiated the instant action, Plaintiff was not involved in any altercations with other inmates. Thornton Decl. ¶ 8.
On or about October 15, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred to Calipatria State Prison and housed with the general population. Docket No. 51 at 3. Plaintiff claims that he is now in danger at Calipatria State Prison because his fellow inmates at Calipatria State Prison do not trust him due to his being labelled a debriefer by Defendants. Docket No. 51 at 2. Plaintiff claims that the reason he was not involved in altercations while at PBSP was because he was incarcerated in the SHU where inmates do not share cells and inmates are escorted by guards whenever they are out of their pods. Docket No. 51 at 3.
To continue reading
Request your trial