Mitchell v. Cate

• Decision Date: 07 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2:08-CV-01196,2:08-CV-01196
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: ROBERT MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

ROBERT MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:08-CV-01196

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: February 7, 2014

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Cate, Kernan, McDonald, Giurbino, Tilton, Felker, Wright, Foulk, Vanderville, Owen and Hellwig's (collectively hereinafter referred to as "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 253.) Plaintiffs Mitchell, Abdullah, Quezada and Trujillo (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") oppose Defendants' motion. (See ECF No. 280.) The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised by both parties. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Robert Mitchell ("Mitchell") initiated this case pro se on May 30, 2008, to challenge, among other things, a series of allegedly race-based lockdowns to which he was subjected to while imprisoned at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP") beginning on September 12,2006. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 12-14.)¹ In his complaint, Mitchell alleges that he filed administrative appeals concerning the lockdown policy as it was applied to him and, in response to his appeals, the prison staff informed Mitchell that it was the policy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") that "when there is an incident involving any race, all inmates of that race are locked up." (ECF No. 1 at 15.) Mitchell further alleged that the CDCR policy utilized ethnic groups as a classification in segmenting the inmate population during the process of establishing a regular program following an incident. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) Mitchell alleged that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights as a result of the lockdowns and that the lockdowns violated his rights to equal protection and due process. (ECF No. 1 at 17, 30-31, 38-44.) Mitchell further alleged that prison officials took adverse actions against him in response to his filing of grievances and lawsuits, constituting unlawful retaliation, obstruction of justice, denial of access to the courts, thereby violating his due process and equal protection rights. (ECF No. 1 at 17-27, 32-37, 45-48.) Lastly, Mitchell asserted state-law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (ECF No. 1 at 48-51.)

The case was originally assigned to District Court Judge John A. Mendez, but was reassigned to visiting Judge Richard A. Jones of the Western District of Washington in January 2009. (ECF No. 7.) During pretrial proceedings, the court appointed counsel for Mitchell for the limited purpose of assisting him in settlement negotiations with Defendants. (ECF No. 60.) Counsel for Mitchell subsequently agreed to provide continuing representation to Mitchell and sought to amend the complaint in order to transform the case into a class action challenging allegedly race-based lockdowns throughout California's men's prisons. (ECF Nos. 70, 74.) Judge Jones directed the transfer of the case back to a judge within the Eastern District of California, concluding that it was "far from ideal for a judge sitting in the Western District of Washington to consider presiding over an action challenging policies at all of California's prisons." (ECF No. 82 at 1.) The case accordingly was reassigned to Judge John A. Mendez andMagistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan, who granted the motion to amend on September 22, 2011. (ECF No. 83.) Mitchell filed the second amended complaint ("SAC") on September 23, 2011. (ECF No. 84.)

The SAC changed the case in the following ways:

(1) Adding three plaintiffs to the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding CDCR's lockdown policies who seek to act, along with plaintiff, as representatives of a class of "all prisoners who are now or will in the future be housed in a men's prison under the jurisdiction of CDCR and who are now or will in the future be subject to CDCR's policy and practice of implementing race-based lockdowns" and a similar class of prisoners who are or will be "subject to CDCR's policy and practice of implementing excessively lengthy lockdowns." (ECF No. 84 at 6);

(2) Adding Defendants CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate, CDCR Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan, CDCR Chief Deputy Secretary for Adult Operations Terri McDonald, and CDCR Director of the Division of Adult Institutions George Giurbino in their official capacities to the injunctive and declaratory relief claims. (ECF No. 84 at 4-5);

(3) Deleting the claims for retaliation, denial of access to courts, and obstruction of justice;

(4) and deleting Defendants T. Barnard, R. Beamon, R. Blanthorn, C. Buckley, D. Cade, T. Kimzey, D. Leiber, T. Lockwood, A. Masuret, J. Mayfield, J. McClure, and J. Walker. (ECF No. 84)

The case was further narrowed on Defendants' November 2, 2011, motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 92.) The court dismissed Mitchell's Eighth and 14th Amendment claims based on lockdowns that occurred before September 12, 2006 as unexhausted and limited his state law damages claims to the period from February 28, 2007 through December 5, 2007. (ECF Nos. 107, 114.)

On March 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class as well as a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 155, 156.) On April 3, 2013, this case was assigned to the undersigned. (ECF No. 178.) Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a request for the district court to hearits pending motions for class certification and injunctive relief pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(d). (ECF No. 182.) Before the Court had an opportunity to rule on Plaintiffs' request, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 253.)

On August 5, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs request stating that "because Plaintiffs' class certification and preliminary injunction motion, as well as Defendants' summary judgment motion, are likely to require de novo review, this Court finds that judicial economy would be best served by this Court retaining all future motions associated with this case." (ECF No. 278.) Thus, this Court retained all matters associated with this case going forward and addresses Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment below, prior to deciding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. See Saeger v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 305 F. App'x 492, 493 (9th Cir. 2008) ("We have previously held that, '[u]nder the proper circumstances—where it is more practicable to do so and where the parties will not suffer significant prejudice—the district court has discretion to rule on a motion for summary judgment before it decides the certification issue.'") (quoting Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 543-44 (9th Cir. 1984)).

II. STANDARD OF LAW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates no genuine issue as to any material fact exists, and therefore, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis of its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotations omitted). Indeed, summary judgment should be entered against a party who does not make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof attrial. Id. at 322.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1986); First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-289 (1968). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 251-52.

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." First Nat'l Bank, 391 U.S. at 288-89. Thus, the "purpose of summary judgment is to 'pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Rule 56(e) advisory committee's note on 1963 amendments).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any applicable affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1982...