Olivier v. Baca

• Decision Date: 11 January 2019
• Docket Number: No. 13-56371,13-56371
• Parties: Maurice P. OLIVIER, AKA Maurice Pierre Olivier, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy D. BACA, Los Angeles County Sheriff of Custody Operations, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

913 F.3d 852

Maurice P. OLIVIER, AKA Maurice Pierre Olivier, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Leroy D. BACA, Los Angeles County Sheriff of Custody Operations, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-56371

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 10, 2018 Pasadena, California

Filed January 11, 2019

R. Chris Lim (argued), Los Feliz Law APC, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jonathan Carl Magno (argued), Daniel Lee, and Paul B. Beach, Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi PC, Glendale, California, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges, and David A. Ezra,^* District Judge.

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:

On the night of July 12, 2006, Plaintiff-Appellant Maurice Olivier ("Olivier") was arrested and taken to the Los Angeles County Inmate Reception Center ("IRC") for processing into permanent housing. Due to a series of disturbances by inmates and lockdowns throughout the Los Angeles County jail system, Olivier was not transferred to permanent housing until the afternoon of July 16, 2006. Olivier brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant-Appellee Sheriff Leroy Baca ("Baca") in Baca’s official and individual capacities, alleging that Baca violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with a bed during his three-and-a-half day stay at the IRC. The district court granted summary judgment in Baca’s favor, holding that Olivier had not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether disturbances by inmates and lockdowns constituted exigent circumstances justifying the floor sleeping. Olivier appeals. We affirm and hold that the exigent circumstance of inmate disturbances and lockdowns justified denying Olivier a bed for his three-and-a-half day stay at the IRC.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.

On May 25, 2006, Olivier was arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department for burglary. He was processed into permanent housing at Los Angeles Men’s Central Jail ("MCJ") but erroneously released on July 7, 2006. On July 12, 2006, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department ("LASD") located and again arrested Olivier. At 9:56 p.m., he arrived at the IRC for processing into the county jail system.¹

Upon Olivier’s arrival at the IRC, he was determined to have health issues. Consequently, Olivier was sent to the medical screening area of the IRC where he waited on a bench for an examination, along with around 100 other people.

LASD officials determined that Olivier could be properly housed only at MCJ in light of his medical needs, his classification as a non-high risk inmate without mental illness, and the proximity of MCJ to the venue of his underlying criminal case.²

While Olivier was being processed at the IRC for transfer to MCJ, inmates at jail facilities across Los Angeles County repeatedly divided themselves along racial lines and fought. This string of inmate disturbances persisted for approximately three days and necessitated lockdowns at multiple facilities, which, in turn, delayed processing at the IRC. LASD logs and declarations from LASD personnel provide accounts of the disturbances.³

Olivier remained at the IRC for the duration of the inmate disturbances, lockdowns, and post-lockdown procedures before being transferred to MCJ on July 16. In total, Olivier was held at the IRC for approximately three-and-a-half days. Olivier testified that although there were benches in the cell where he was held, there was inadequate space to accommodate the number of detainees at the IRC. Olivier testified that no one slept on the benches because trying to do so would have led to a fight. As a result, Olivier slept on the floor during his time at the IRC. Olivier testified that he never asked for "a mattress, blankets, or any other sort of padding."

After the lockdowns began on July 13, the first time inmates were picked up from the IRC custody line was on July 16 around 2:00 a.m. Olivier was transferred to the MCJ at 1:14 p.m. on July 16.

B.

On October 30, 2008, Olivier filed a complaint in district court alleging civil rights violations related to both his extended stay at the IRC and events that occurred after he was transferred to MCJ.⁴ The district court dismissed certain aspects of Olivier’s original claims, and Olivier amended his complaint several times. By the time the case reached the summary judgment stage, the only remaining claim relevant to this appeal was a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Baca in his official and individual capacities regarding Olivier’s being forced to sleep on the floor at the medical intake area of the IRC.

Baca filed a motion for summary judgment. After the magistrate judge recommended denying the motion for lack of evidence that exigent circumstances existed, the district court gave Baca an opportunity to supplement the record. Baca then submitted additional declarations by LASD officials. In 2013, the Operations Deputy at the IRC explained that in response to such disturbances a large proportion of jail staff must work to restore order. Jail personnel who do not respond to the disturbances and remain in other areas of the facility are, therefore, likely to be significantly outnumbered by inmates. Consequently, normal operations must be suspended and the entire facility placed on lockdown until order is restored and the staff-to-inmate ratio returns to normal in all areas of the jail. As part of a lockdown, no inmates are permitted to move in or out of the facility. This means inmate transfers to permanent housing are cancelled by the IRC for the duration of a lockdown. A lockdown at a facility in Los Angeles County may thus prolong processing times at the IRC. The Operations Deputy further explained that a lockdown in any one of the booking front, class rear, or custody line stages necessarily results in a lockdown in the other areas because each stage operates in connection with the others.

An LASD sergeant assigned to the MCJ during the time of the disturbances explained that after a lockdown is lifted, inmate movement cannot immediately resume. Following a lockdown caused by inmate disturbances, detention facility personnel must conduct thorough security checks, survey property damage, and address medical needs. These post-lockdown procedures naturally lead to delays in inmate processing in excess of the length of the lockdowns themselves.

The magistrate judge concluded that the newly supplemented record conclusively demonstrated that the Los Angeles County jail system experienced exigent circumstances due to the disturbances and lockdowns. The magistrate judge recommended granting Baca’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. On July 19, 2013, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, granted summary judgment in favor of Baca, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court’s order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo. McDonald v. Sun Oil Co. , 548 F.3d 774, 778 (9th Cir. 2008). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Where, as here, the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case." Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

III. ANALYSIS

A pretrial detainee is

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause .... Under the Due Process Clause, detainees have a right against jail conditions or restrictions that amount to punishment. This standard differs significantly from the standard relevant to convicted prisoners, who may be subject to punishment so long as it does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar against cruel and unusual punishment.

Pierce v. Cty. of Orange , 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). For Olivier to state an actionable claim against Baca in his official capacity, Olivier must show that "the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers." Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York , 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Local entities may also be "sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels." Id. at 690–91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. For Olivier to state an actionable claim against Baca in his individual capacity, he must show that Baca was personally involved in his alleged constitutional deprivation by, for example, acting, or failing to act, in a manner that was deliberately indifferent to Olivier’s constitutional rights. Starr v. Baca , 652 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2011).

A.

Olivier argues that summary judgment was improper because the evidence in the record establishes a triable issue as to whether the disturbances by inmates and lockdowns justified his floor sleeping.

It has long been recognized that "central to all other corrections goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves." Pell v. Procunier , 417 U.S. 817, 823, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). The Supreme Court has explained that measures to preserve security and order "may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees." Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 546, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). In this regard, corrections officials "should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and...