Goolsby v. Cnty. of San Diego

Decision Date26 September 2018
Docket NumberCase No.: 3:17-cv-564-WQH-NLS
PartiesTHOMAS GOOLSBY, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

and

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EARLY DISCOVERY

[ECF Nos. 67, 74]

Before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 67; and Plaintiff, Thomas Goolsby's, motion for leave to conduct early discovery, ECF No. 74. One factor relevant to the motion for leave to conduct early discovery is whether the complaint will survive a motion to dismiss, so the Court finds it appropriate to address both motions simultaneously.

I.PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initially filed a complaint on March 21, 2017. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis ("IFP") status but his complaint failed to survive screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given leave to amend to correct deficiencies. Id. On August 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint. ECF No. 9. Again, the complaint failed to survive screening and Plaintiff was given leave to amend. ECF No. 11. On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 12. For the third time, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and he was given a "one final opportunity" to amend to correct deficiencies. ECF No. 14 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on April 23, 2018. ECF No. 15. The complaint survived screening and, due to Plaintiff's IFP status, the Marshals were directed to serve the complaint. ECF No. 16.

In response to the Marshals' efforts to serve the deputies identified—all employees of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department—28 summons were returned unexecuted, most of which indicate: "Per San Diego Sheriff's Department, they have more than one deputy with this last name. More information needed to identify defendant." See generally, ECF Nos. 20-47. In order to gather more information to effectuate service, Plaintiff moves for leave to conduct early discovery to gather information sufficient to identify the unserved deputies. ECF No. 74. Defendants oppose, arguing that Plaintiff's complaint will not survive a motion to dismiss, rendering early discovery unnecessary and inappropriate. ECF No. 80.

II.ALLEGATIONS OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from his incarceration at the San Diego County Jail ("SDCJ") between December 12, 2016 and May 17, 2017. ECF No. 15 [Third Amended Complaint,"TAC"] at 8-9, ¶¶ 1-2, 5.1 Plaintiff's complaint alleges three claims: (1) lack of Fourteenth Amendment due process in his classification and extended placement in administrative segregation ("ad seg"); (2) conditions of confinement that violate his Eighth Amendment rights, specifically, depriving him of sleep; and (3) conditions of confinement that violate his Eighth Amendment rights, specifically, depriving him out-of-cell exercise.

A. Placement in Administrative Segregation

Plaintiff alleges that upon his transfer from Kern Valley State prison to SDCJ the classification committee, comprised of "Lt. Smith, Sgt. Lawson, Sgt. Froisted, Deputy Price, Deputy Leon, Deputy Bravo, Deputy Martinez, and Deputy Rios," placed Plaintiff in solitary confinement without providing any reason to Plaintiff. TAC at 14, ¶¶ 60-61. Plaintiff alleges he repeatedly asked the John Doe2 defendants escorting him the reason for his placement to which they responded, "I don't know, it is classification's decision." Id. at ¶ 61. Plaintiff states he immediately filed an inmate request with the classification department seeking written notice and explanation of Plaintiff's classification and placement but did not receive a response. Id. at ¶ 62. He then filed a grievance regarding his placement and seeking an explanation, to which Sgt. Lawson replied but "refus[ed] to tell [Plaintiff] the reason for his solitary confinement placement or provide him with notice, hearing or allow rebuttal." Id. at ¶¶ 63-64. Plaintiff appealed Sgt. Lawson's answer as inadequate, but received no response to his appeal. Id. at 15, ¶ 65.

Plaintiff alleges that SDCJ has a policy that limits disciplinary segregation to 10 days, but that he was held for 150 days and "took a plea deal just to escape the harsh conditions of solitary confinement." Id. at 19, ¶¶ 83-84. Plaintiff alleges that because he was placed in solitary confinement, he was unable to participate in programs and benefitsavailable to inmates in general population, ranging from access to board games, cleaning supplies, and out-of-cell exercise to participation in educational and rehabilitative programs for good time credit. Id. at 15, ¶ 66-19, ¶ 81.

B. Sleep Deprivation

Plaintiff's complaint includes multiple factors that contributed to sleep deprivation. First, Plaintiff alleges he was unable to sleep due to policies instituted by Sheriff Gore and the SDCJ including: cell count at 11:00 p.m. and 3:30 a.m.; serving breakfast from 4-4:30 a.m.; and that cells were kept at high bright light levels until after razor pick-up at 1:00 a.m. and for the 3:30 a.m. cell count, and then switched to low light (never darkness). Id. at ¶¶ 85, 89.

Plaintiff also faults various individual defendants for sleep deprivation due to their permitting or selecting excessively loud TV volume until 9:45 p.m. (and 10:45 p.m. on weekends) and starting again at 7:00 a.m. Id. at ¶ 85. Plaintiff also alleges during razor pass-out and pick up, which happened during odd hours of the night, certain defendants engaged in excessively loud tray slot door slamming between 12:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he approached several defendants making the excessive noise and those who had the authority to order razors be passed out and picked up at an earlier time and in a quieter manner, and asked that it proceed more quietly and informed defendants of the effect the noise had on his sleep, to no avail. Id. at ¶ 86.

Placement in ad seg also meant placement with mentally ill inmates, who contributed to Plaintiff's inability to sleep. Plaintiff alleges he complained "about being housed with mentally ill inmates who bang, yell, scream, throw urine, feces, food, spit and throw trash..." and further disrupted his sleep. Id. Plaintiff alleges he "submitted dozens of inmate requests and letters" to several defendants asking to be rehoused, but "despite being put on repeated notice of the injuries being suffered by Plaintiff due to the actions of the mentally ill inmates they did nothing and allowed Plaintiff to continue to suffer." Id. at ¶ 87.

Plaintiff specifically alleges he told defendants Deputies Oliver, Brewer, Gonzales, Price, and Lovelace during their hourly walks through the housing unit that Plaintiff was experiencing sleep deprivation due to the factors outlined above, but that none took action to remedy the situation. Id. at 28, ¶¶ 110-112; 30, ¶114. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges he met with Lt. Kevin Kamoss3 on February 3, 2017, and on at least two other occasions during Saturday inspections to inform him of Plaintiff's sleep deprivation caused by the actions and/or policies of the SDCJ and its deputies. Id. at 30, ¶ 115.

Plaintiff alleges that sleep deprivation caused him "severe physical and psychological injuries" such as headaches, fatigue, high blood pressure, depression, and "inability to concentrate or effectively cooperate with his criminal case." Id. at ¶ 88.4

C. Out of Cell Exercise

Plaintiff claims that "beginning February 7, 2017" he was "denied all out-of cell exercise, including access to the indoor rec-yard." Id. at 25, ¶ 98. Plaintiff "repeatedly requested yard access" but was denied. Id. at ¶ 101. Plaintiff alleges he stopped defendant Deputy Price to ask for out of cell exercise and informed him that the lack of out of cell exercise was causing Plaintiff physical and psychological harm. Id. at 29, ¶ 113. As a result of the deprivation, Plaintiff alleges he suffered from "headaches, breathing difficulties, muscle and ligament tightening, cardiovascular regression, weight gain, and depression, as well as other physical and psychological injuries." Id. at 26, ¶ 104. Plaintiff requests injunctive, compensatory, punitive, and declaratory relief. TAC at 32.

III.MOTION TO STRIKE

Among the allegations outlined above, the TAC also contains a lengthy comparison of the conditions and policies applicable to the inmates housed in general population and those in ad seg. ECF No. 15 at 15, ¶¶ 66-67; 16, ¶¶ 68-71; 17, ¶¶ 68-73; 18, ¶¶ 74-78; 19, ¶¶ 79-81. Defendants argue the comparisons between general population and ad seg are impertinent and irrelevant to the claims alleged and should be stricken. In response, Plaintiff points to the Screening Order from Judge Hayes setting forth that to establish a liberty interest sufficient to state a due process claim, Plaintiff must allege the differences between general population at SDCJ and segregation at SDCJ. See ECF No. 11 at 6. Defendants' reply distinguishes case law cited to by Plaintiff but fails to address the specific direction provided to Plaintiff by the court. ECF No. 83 at 2.

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners against deprivation or restraint of a protected liberty interest. The Supreme Court in Sandin makes clear that the focus of the liberty interest inquiry is whether the challenged condition imposes an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); see also Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit explained that "Sandin requires a factual comparison between conditions in general population or administrative...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT