Denton v. Rainer
| Docket Number | C19-5743 BHS |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2023 |
| Parties | MICHAEL DENTON, Plaintiff, v. KARIE RAINER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Kevin Bowen, Sean Murphy, Michael Obenland, Karie Rainer, Cheryl Strange, and Timothy Thrasher's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 248.
Plaintiff Michael Denton is currently incarcerated by the Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”) at Washington State Penitentiary (“WSP”) in Walla Walla Washington. Denton was first incarcerated in a Washington DOC facility in 2006 for a crime unrelated to his current confinement. Upon entering DOC custody in 2006, Denton was immediately assigned to maximum (“Max”) custody. He spent his entire first incarceration, from 2006 to 2013, in either a Restrictive Housing Unit (“RHU”) or in a Close Observation Area (“COA”).
In 2015, Denton was arrested and placed back in Pierce County Jail for a parole violation. He was held at the jail awaiting trial for custodial assault charges and was ultimately convicted and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Denton was held in isolation at the Pierce County Jail and upon his return to DOC custody in June 2017, he was again at his request immediately placed into Max custody. Denton remained in various types of restricted custody until his release into a close custody unit, Baker Unit,[1]at WSP in March 2023. Denton has never entered general population while in DOC custody.
Max custody is DOC's highest classification level. Dkt. 248 at 2. According to DOC, “[i]ndividuals are housed on Max custody when they pose a significant risk to the safety and security of employees, contract staff, volunteers, and other individuals based on (1) commission of violent serious infractions; (2) chronic behavioral/infraction problems; (3) acts that present a significant risk; and/or (4) validated protection needs.” Id. at 2-3. Max custody inmates' status is formally reviewed every 180 days and informally reviewed every 60 days.[2]Id. at 3.
DOC develops a Behavior and Programming Plan (“BPP”) for Max custody inmates, which “sets forth programming expectations and behaviors that an inmate should or should not engage in.” Id. DOC sometimes also develops an Individual Behavior Management Plan (“IBMP”) for Max custody inmates, which “set[s] forth clear expectations of behavior by the inmate and consistent and appropriate responses by staff to both good and bad behavior.” Id.
Max custody inmates participate in a Level/Step program where they can progress from Level 1 to Level 3[3]if they exhibit good behavior. Id. The inmate must be at Level 1 for a minimum of 30 days before progressing to Level 2, and at Level 2 for a minimum of 30 days before progressing to Level 3. Id. When an inmate moves up a level, he is afforded additional privileges such as a radio or a television. Dkt. 155, ¶ 19. At the highest level, the inmate is let out of his cell with other inmates for four hours a day. Id. If an inmate receives infractions, he is demoted to a lower level. Id. ¶ 20. An inmate must successfully progress through all the levels to be released from Max custody. Id.
Max custody inmates also have access to medical and mental health care and, in some facilities, programming, but DOC acknowledges that “the restrictions are inevitably more severe than general population units.” Dkt. 248 at 3.
Denton characterizes his continued placement in Max custody as solitary confinement and asserts that he had been held in isolation for his entire incarceration until March 2023. Dkt. 155, ¶ 15. The DOC disputes this characterization. It asserts that Denton spent time in the Special Offender Unit (“SOU”) and the Close Observation Unit (“COA”), which it apparently does not consider to be solitary confinement. See, e.g., Dkt. 162, ¶ 15.
Regardless of the parties' disagreement and whether the SOU and the COA are fairly considered solitary confinement, it is indisputable that Denton has spent, by far, most of the time in isolation.
The parties also disagree about the severity and cause of Denton's mental health issues. DOC asserts that Denton engages in some level of malingering,[4] and has control over his behavior. See, e.g., Dkt. 248 at 14-15 (“[W]hen Denton believes it is advantageous to him, he acts out and lashes out toward staff.”). Denton argues that his time spent in solitary has significantly worsened (and continues to magnify) his mental health such that he is often unable to control his behavior, and he disputes that he is malingering. See generally Dkt. 259.
Denton filed four related lawsuits, including this case, between 2017 and 2020. See Denton v. Pastor, 17-cv-5075 BHS; Denton v. Thrasher, 18-cv-5017 BHS; Denton v. Thrasher, 20-cv-5968 BHS. Each challenged, in some capacity, his long-term incarceration in solitary confinement. The other three suits have been resolved and only this one remains. None of Denton's previously resolved federal lawsuits substantively addressed his claims that DOC's practices involving solitary confinement, both on their face and as applied to him, are unconstitutional.
In this case, Denton initially sued nineteen DOC employee defendants while proceeding pro se in 2019. Dkt. 10. He simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), Dkt. 11, which the Court denied, Dkt. 36, adopting the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke, Dkt. 14. Shortly after that denial, Denton again moved for a TRO, Dkt. 38, and for the appointment of counsel, Dkt. 40. Before those motions were resolved, Denton retained counsel, Dkt. 42, and withdrew his TRO motion, Dkt. 52, agreeing that it was moot given his transfer from WSP to SCCC.
Denton filed his first motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2021. Dkt. 59. After oral argument, Dkt. 66, Judge Fricke recommended this Court grant Denton's motion, Dkt. 67. The Court declined to adopt Judge Fricke's R&R, concluding the briefing was insufficient to rule on the motion. Dkt. 78. It ordered the parties to file additional briefing regarding inconsistencies of the relief requested in Denton's complaint and his TRO, and potential mootness issues. Id.
While Denton's preliminary injunction motion was pending, Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of Denton's expert, Dr. Anthony Eusanio, Dkt. 76, and for summary judgment, Dkt. 89.
In November 2021, after the parties submitted supplemental briefing, Judge Fricke heard oral argument on all three motions. Dkt. 96. She denied the motions as premature and granted Denton leave to amend his complaint. Id.; see also Dkt. 97. Denton filed an amended complaint in which he added and removed claims and defendants. Dkt. 98. Defendants objected to Judge Fricke's order, arguing that Denton never properly moved to amend and that they therefore did not have an opportunity to review his amended complaint prior to Judge Fricke's order, nor did they have a meaningful opportunity to oppose the motion. Dkt. 100. They argued that the amended complaint was improper because of the major changes it made to both claims and defendants, years into this case. Id. Defendants Rainer and Russell also moved to dismiss Denton's complaint. Dkt. 103.
In March 2022, the Court agreed that Judge Fricke's order granting Denton leave to amend his complaint was improper and overruled that order. Dkt. 115. Denton then moved to amend his complaint, again seeking to significantly change the claims and defendants. Dkt. 118. Judge Fricke recommended denying the motion because of those significant changes. Dkt. 148. This Court declined to adopt that R&R and granted Denton's motion to amend, but it ordered Denton to follow specific guidelines in drafting and filing his amended complaint. Dkt. 151. He did so, and that amended complaint remains the operative complaint in this case. See Dkt. 155.
In May 2022, Defendants again moved to exclude Denton's expert, Dr. Eusanio. Dkt. 142. Judge Fricke denied that motion, and all other pending motions, as moot because they were directed toward Denton's previous complaint. Dkt. 157. In October 2022, Denton voluntarily dismissed seventeen defendants. Dkt. 158. Since that time, Denton has asserted three claims against six defendants.[5]See id.
In November 2022, Denton moved, again, for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. 163, and Defendants again moved to exclude Denton's expert, Dr. Eusanio, Dkt. 166. The Court denied Defendants' motion to exclude, Dkt. 177, and held a two-day evidentiary hearing on Denton's preliminary injunction motion, Dkts. 204, 205. Ultimately, the Court reserved ruling on Denton's motion given DOC's assurances that it was working on a plan to transfer Denton out of solitary and into the BAR Units. Dkts. 205, 206. It also ordered the parties to procure an independent mental health evaluation of Denton. Denton also moved to exclude the testimony of Defendants' expert witness, Dr. Ryan Quirk, at trial. Dkt. 202.
In March 2023, the Court held a status conference during which the parties discussed DOC's plan to move Denton out of solitary and the status of the updated mental health evaluation. Dkt. 223. The Court also ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing on Denton's motion to exclude. Id. Denton was released into Baker Unit in April 2023 and the parties' agreed mental health examiner, Dr. Nathan Henry, evaluated Denton. See Dkt. 237. He filed his report with the Court under seal at Dkt. 242.
Given Denton's release from solitary, the Court denied his preliminary injunction motion as moot. Dkt. 243.
In mid-May 2023, Denton received several infractions, including for threatening to harm...
To continue reading
Request your trial