Hicks v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Otero
| Decision Date | 06 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:18-cv-0850 JB-JFR |
| Parties | CARLOS HASAN HICKS, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF OTERO, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION RE: DOCS. 52, 64, and 70:[1]
Plaintiff presents constitutional and tort challenges concerning 842 (out of 1171) days he spent in solitary confinement as a pretrial detainee at two New Mexico state prison facilities. He contends that Defendants provided no reason for his solitary placement, and he received no notice or opportunity to challenge that detention prior to being released after his decision to plead guilty, which he only did to end the solitary confinement. Plaintiff also alleges he was denied important medical and dental care that should have been available during his pretrial detention.
This matter is before the Court on three substantive motions. First, a Motion to Dismiss from four individual defendants and the Management & Training Corp. (“MTC”) (collectively referred to here as the “MTC Defendants”) filed March 15, 2021. Doc. 52. Plaintiff's counsel withdrew shortly after that motion was filed, and Plaintiff filed an incomplete response on July 14, 2021 (Doc. 73), [2] and he filed a subsequent response on October 6, 2021 (Doc. 84). The same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed pro se. Doc. 82.[3] The MTC Defendants moved to strike Document 84 (the second response) on October 20, 2021 (Doc 86), and they had already filed a reply to their Motion to Dismiss on July 28, 2021 (Doc. 74). Plaintiff responded to the MTC Defendants' reply on August 2, 2021. Doc. 76. On August 17, 2021, the MTC Defendants moved to strike Document 76 as an improper surreply. Doc. 77. In further response to the MTC Defendants' motion to dismiss, on October 12 2021, Plaintiff also filed a document entitled “Further Testimony to (“MTC Defendants”) Document No. 52 ” which is essentially a motion to depose a former, neighboring inmate that Plaintiff knew during his time spent in solitary confinement. Doc. 85 at 2 (). Defendants did not respond to that request/motion.
The second substantive motion presented for consideration is a Motion to Dismiss that Defendant Javier Sifuentes filed on April 19, 2021. Doc. 64. The pro se Plaintiff responded to that motion on October 6, 2021. Doc. 83. Defendant Sifuentes replied on October 20, 2021. Doc. 87.
The third and final motion before the Court is Southwest Correctional Medical Group, Inc.'s (hereinafter “SWCMG”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment based on the statute of limitations, filed on June 7, 2021. Doc. 70. Plaintiff responded very briefly on page 7 of Document 83. SWCMG replied on October 21, 2021. Doc. 89.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the relevant law, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that no hearing is required and recommends that Defendants' motions, Documents 52, 64, and 70 be DENIED. The Court also recommends the district court GRANT the motion to strike at Document 77 (striking Document 76 as an improper surreply), but DENY the motion to strike at Document 86 (allowing Document 84 to stand). The Court recommends the district judge DENY Plaintiff's motion at Document 82 as moot (motion to proceed pro se), and GRANT IN PART Plaintiff's motion at Document 85 (request to depose former inmate), as limited herein.
The Court takes its facts concerning the two motions to dismiss from the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. 40) filed January 14, 2021, as it must when considering the alleged failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[4] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this case pro se as a pretrial detainee on September 10, 2018 (Doc. 1).[5] He retained counsel after his release from custody on November 4, 2019, and he filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 24, 2020 (Doc. 22).[6] On December 18, 2020, District Judge James O. Browning ordered Defendants to produce discovery and permitted Plaintiff to file a SAC (Doc. 38), which Plaintiff did with assistance of counsel on January 14, 2021 (Doc. 40); his counsel withdrew on April 13, 2021. This Court previously ruled on Otero County's motion to dismiss, denying the motion and permitting Plaintiff time to obtain new counsel as he requested, but which he did not do. Doc. 72. Plaintiff, therefore, proceeds here pro se.
The underlying facts at issue are discussed at length in this Court's prior orders and are repeated here only as required for purposes of addressing the pending motions. See Docs. 37 and 72.[7] The crux of the SAC (and the prior complaints) concerns the 842 days in solitary confinement that Plaintiff experienced during his 1171 days as a pretrial detainee. Doc. 40 ¶ 31. Plaintiff is no longer in custody. Plaintiff was eventually sentenced to 545 days of 1171 days of time served. Id. ¶ 48.
The Alamogordo Police Department first arrested Plaintiff on November 25, 2014. Id. ¶ 16. The police booked Plaintiff into the Otero County Detention Center (“OCDC”) on several charges, including battery against a household member. Id. He was released on bond the next day, and on December 16, 2014, a Grand Jury returned an indictment against him, and a criminal summons was issued on December 17, 2014. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff was again arrested and booked into OCDC on January 5, 2015. Id. ¶ 21. He was released on bond a few days later (January 9, 2015), but then arrested in New York and extradited back to New Mexico on September 21, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff went back into custody on January 24, 2016, and he remained a pretrial detainee until he accepted an Alford Plea to assault against a household member and damage to property on April 10, 2019, at which time he was released from custody. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff alleges that he accepted the Alford Plea only because of the uncertainty associated with the ongoing, indefinite duration of his solitary confinement. Id. ¶ 26. While detained, Plaintiff filed his original complaint on September 10, 2018; the time-period of his placement in solitary confinement ranged from October 24, 2017 to April 9, 2019. With counsel's assistance, Plaintiff made two public record requests for discovery related to his detention, first in October 2019, and again in June 2020. See Doc. 30 at 16.
During Plaintiff's time at OCDC, Defendant Sifuentes directed Plaintiff's administrative detention[8] from (1) October 24, 2017 to November 29, 2017, (2) August 30, 2018 to October 19, 2018, and (3) November 30, 2018 to April 9, 2019. Defendants moved Plaintiff from OCDC to the Otero County Prison Facility (“OCPF”) and the Hidalgo County Detention Center throughout his detention; at the Hidalgo Detention Center, he was placed in the general population. Doc. 40 ¶¶ 45, 48. Plaintiff was also in the general population at OCDC for eight months, beginning March 23, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37, 42-43, 45-47. SWCMG is a California corporation that provides medical services to correctional facilities, including OCDC. Id. ¶ 6. Defendant Sifuentes is employed at OCDC (and/or Otero County). Doc. 40 ¶ 7. Defendant MTC is a Utah corporation that operates and staffs OCPF and MTC Medical Units. Doc. 40 ¶ 5. Plaintiff asserts that MTC is liable for any negligence or deprivation that OCPF and its employees caused. Defendants Soto, Camacho, Moya, Leon, and Ochoa are employees at MTC and/or OCPF.[9]
During Plaintiff's pretrial detention, Defendant(s) failed to inform him why he was placed in solitary confinement; they also neglected to (1) perform a mental health assessment as required by relevant guidelines, and (2) provide an opportunity to challenge his conditions of confinement. Id. Plaintiff's physical and mental health deteriorated during his confinement, including severe dental problems and known, pre-existing conditions of schizoaffective disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. ¶¶ 27, 30, 50-51, 53.
The SAC alleges four Counts against Defendants the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Otero (hereinafter “Otero County”), the MTC Defendants and Defendant Sifuentes: Count I: Violation of Procedural Due Process; Count II: Violation of Substantive Due Process; Count III: Municipal and Corporate Liability (as to only Otero County and Defendant MTC); and Count IV: False Imprisonment Under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (“NMTCA”). Doc. 40. Count II is also asserted against Defendant SWCMG.
A motion for summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S.Ct. 2548 2552 (1986); Jones v. Kodak Med. Assistance Plan, 169 F.3d 1287, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of [the record] ... which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Catrett, 106 S.Ct. at 2552 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670-71 (10thCir. 1998). Once the movant meets this burden, the non-moving party is required to put in the record facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial