Hylton v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for the Cnty. of Dona Ana
| Decision Date | 22 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-cv-01155-KWR-CG |
| Citation | 527 F.Supp.3d 1296 |
| Parties | Susan HYLTON, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR the COUNTY OF DONA ANA, Tiara Gamboa, Aurora Terrazas, and Vicki Hooser, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Alyssa D. Quijano, Matthew Coyte, Coyte Law, PC, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.
Damian L. Martinez, Haley R. Grant, Mynatt Martinez Springer P.C., Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant Board of County Commissioners for the County of Dona Ana.
Damian L. Martinez, Mynatt Martinez Springer P.C., Las Cruces, NM, for Defendants Tiara Gamboa, Aurora Terrazas, Vicki Hooser.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants Gamboa's and Terrazas’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity as to Count I (Doc. 54) . Having reviewed the parties’ pleadings and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants’ motion is WELL-TAKEN and, therefore, is GRANTED .
This case arises out of a detainee's visual body cavity search in the Doña Ana County Detention Center ("DACDC"). Plaintiff was detained in the DACDC pending a probation revocation hearing. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Gamboa and Terrazas violated her constitutional rights during the visual body cavity search. Defendants Gamboa and Terrazas are female corrections officers at DACDC. Defendants assert that they received a report from an inmate that detainees in Cell 20 of pod Echo 3 possessed and was using methamphetamine. A detainee tested positive for methamphetamine. They subsequently began a search of the Echo 3 pod, and visually searched the detainees in Cell 20, including Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the following claims against the Defendants:
Count I: Unreasonable Search and Violation of the Right to Bodily Privacy and the Fourteenth and/or Eighth Amendments ();
Count II: Retaliation in Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments ();
Count III: Violations of Procedural Due Process (Defendant Hooser in her individual and official capacities and Defendant Gamboa in her individual capacity); and
Count IV: Violation of Substantive Due Process (All Defendants)
In this motion for summary judgment Defendants Gamboa and Terrazas seek judgment on Count I.
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 , 477 U.S. 317, 330, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). As the Tenth Circuit has explained, "mere assertions and conjecture are not enough to survive summary judgment." York v. AT&T , 95 F.3d 948, 955 (10th Cir. 1996). To avoid summary judgment, a party "must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed." Branson v. Price River Coal Co. , 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Dewitt v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 845 F.3d 1299, 1306 (10th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
For the qualified immunity analysis, the Court generally considers Plaintiff's version of the facts that are supported in the record. Moreover, the Court considers the facts Plaintiff expressly admitted or did not genuinely dispute. To the extent a party's asserted facts do not contain citations to the record and are not otherwise expressly admitted by the opposing party, the Court disregards them.
Plaintiff was detained at the DACDC on September 17, 2018 for a probation violation with a hearing on December 19, 2018. Plaintiff was housed in cell 20 of the Echo 3 dayroom or pod. On October 16, 2018, Sgt. Claudia Renteria received a report from a detainee that there were drugs, or a white powdery substance, being snorted in the bathroom by detainees in Cell 20.
Sgt. Renteria walked through the Echo 3 pod and noticed that Plaintiff's cellmate was acting unusually, so she called the medical staff to determine whether the cellmate was under the influence. On October 17, 2018, Sgt. Gamboa learned that Plaintiff's cellmate tested positive for methamphetamine.
Sgt. Gamboa gathered and briefed available officers for a shakedown or search of Echo 3. This included three female officers – Sgt. Gamboa, Officer Terrazas, and Officer Lizet Romero. Officer Romero had to be relieved from other duties for the shakedown. Male officers assisted in the shakedown due to shortages of available female officers. Officer Delgado, a male officer, used a canine to search Echo 3 for drugs. Sgt. Gamboa told the officers that Cell 20 was the target area and instructed officers to restrain all female detainees before conducting visual searches on the detainees in Cell 20. Female officers were instructed to perform clothing searches of the detainees in Cell 20. Sgt. Gamboa instructed male officers to stay away from the shower area where the visual searches would be conducted.
At the beginning of the shakedown, the female officers entered the Echo 3 dayroom followed by several male officer and announced that male officers were entering the pod. They directed detainees to get on the floor with their hands on their heads.
Plaintiff and her cellmates exited Cell 20 and faced an adjacent wall and were handcuffed. Plaintiff and four other detainees in Cell 20 were visually searched in the shower area of Echo 3 by two female officers, Defendant Gamboa and Defendant Terrazas. The shower area has two separate cinderblock stalls in an L configuration, therefore Defendant Gamboa and Terrazas brought two detainees at a time to the shower area for visual body cavity searches.
During the visual search, Defendants instructed the detainee to remove their clothing and included a visual body cavity search. Defendants also searched the detainees’ clothes.
DACDC policy permits a visual search "when there is reasonable suspicion to believe the detainee is in possession of contraband that cannot be detected by a pat search ... [when] credible information is learned that the detainee possesses contraband."
Doc. 54 at 5, UMF 14. Id. , UMF 15. "Staff of the same sex as the detainee shall make the search, except where circumstances are such that delay would constitute an immediate threat to the detainee, staff, others, property, or institutional security." Id. at 6, UMF 16.
Officers are prohibited by policy from touching detainees during visual searches and officers are required to isolate the detainee pending approval for the search, conduct the search in an area that ensures privacy, and conduct the search tactfully and professionally. DACDC policy further provides that to "obtain a clear view of the rectum/vaginal area, [officers must] have the subject bend over and spread the rectum [, h]ave the subject squat and [ ] cough
3-5 times then [officers] re-inspect the rectal/vaginal area." Doc. 54 at 6, UMF 18.
The shower area is separated from a corridor by a long shower curtain. The shower area has two shower stalls in an L-shaped configuration. One stall faces the shower curtain while the other stall sits perpendicular to the other stall. Doc. 54-3 at 3-10 ().
The five detainees in cell 20 were escorted two at a time into the shower area. They were put into separate shower stalls during the visual searches. Doc. 54 at 6 UMF 20.
Plaintiff presents an affidavit from the other detainee searched, Ms. Velazquez. Ms. Velazquez states that the two were placed in the same area or stall. Doc. 63-1 at 13. As explained below, viewing the lapel camera footage (Doc. 54-4, Attachment 2) and the photographs (Doc. 54-3 at 3-10) the Court concludes that no reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff and Ms. Velazquez were placed in the same stall. The lapel camera reflects that both Sgt. Gamboa and Officer Terrazas were standing in the shower area between the stalls. The stalls are approximately 36 to 40 inches wide. It was not possible for all four to be in the shower common area, especially if the inmates were sitting down as asserted by Ms. Velazquez. Defendants asserted, through affidavits, that Ms. Velazquez and Plaintiff were placed in separate stalls, and they sat on the floor facing the back wall, away from the other detainee. Doc. 54-12 at 2; Doc. 54-3 at 2. However, a reasonable jury could conclude that, depending on where Ms. Velazquez and Plaintiff were standing or sitting in their respective stalls, Ms. Velazquez and Plaintiff could potentially see each other. Doc. 63-1 ¶ 15, 16.
Plaintiff asserts that she and Ms. Velazquez were "forced" to face each other, but this is unsupported in the record. See Doc. 63-1 at 2 ().
Plaintiff asserts she was forced to cough
thirteen times...
To continue reading
Request your trial