Parrish v. Solis
| Decision Date | 13 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 11-CV-01438 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | KAHEAL PARRISH, Plaintiff, v. A. SOLIS, et al., Defendants. |
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-
Plaintiff Kaheal Parrish, a prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"), filed this lawsuit on March 18, 2011 alleging violations of his civil rights by several prison officials. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's original complaint named as defendants A. Solis, B. Hedrick, W. Muniz, K. Salazar, R. Machuca, B. Powell, A. Machuca, and J. Sanudo. ECF No. 1. After this Court granted in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 79, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend his complaint. ECF No. 104. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint now brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against K. Salazar, R. Machuca, B. Powell, A. Machuca, J. Sanudo, and Maurice Haldeman (collectively, "Defendants"). ECF No. 120, First Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Complaint"). This Order addresses Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 111.
As the Court explained in its Order Responding to the Parties' Notice of Ninth Circuit Law, ECF No. 155, the Ninth Circuit recently held that a defense of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies in the Prison Litigation Reform Act context should be raised at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings rather than the motion to dismiss stage. Albino v. Baca, 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141 at *6 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014). Accordingly, in light of Albino, this Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims based on Plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 111. Defendants may re-raise their non-exhaustion defense in their summary judgment motion to be filed by August 21, 2014. This Order addresses the remaining issues raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 111.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument, and accordingly VACATES the hearing on this motion set for May 15, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. The May 15, 2014 Case Management Conference will remain as set. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS IN PART without prejudice and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply.
Plaintiff was housed at SVSP from roughly 2006 until 2013, during which time he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and was assigned to the prison's Enhanced Outpatient Program for intensive treatment and medication. Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 26-27. Defendant Salazar is a Correctional Lieutenant at SVSP, Defendant R. Machuca is a Correctional Sergeant at SVSP, and the remaining defendants are Correctional Officers at SVSP. Id. at ¶¶ 14-18, 20.
According to the Office of the Inspector General, by 2003 a group of correctional officers at SVSP formed a gang called "The Green Wall" which engaged in excessive force, intimidation, and retaliation to control inmates. Id. at ¶ 28. Since 2004, SVSP administrators have attempted to eliminate the Green Wall Gang and the "Code of Silence" it established at the prison to concealwrongdoing by officers, but at the time Plaintiff was housed in Cellblock D-2 the gang was still active there. Id. at ¶¶ 29-31. Plaintiff alleges that some or all of the Defendants were active members of the Green Wall gang. Id. at ¶ 22.
After a May 2010 hearing regarding an earlier charge of indecent exposure against Plaintiff, Defendant R. Machuca threatened that Plaintiff would "feel the Green Wall" if he indecently exposed himself again. Id. at ¶ 32. On the morning of June 11, 2010, Plaintiff was again charged with indecently exposing himself to a prison social worker, and Defendant Powell told him, "Sergeant Machuca said he already told you next time you expose yourself, you're getting fucked up, so you got an ass-kicking coming." Id. at ¶ 33. On that day, Defendants Salazar, R. Machuca, A. Machuca, Powell, and Sanudo (collectively, "Assault Defendants") were on duty in Cellblock D-2 where Plaintiff was housed; Salazar was the Incident Commander on duty. Id. at ¶¶ 27, 32-33.
Afraid of retribution by prison officers for his second indecent exposure charge, Plaintiff began feeling suicidal and reported that he had swallowed metal to both officers and a psychiatric technician delivering his medicine. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. When Defendants R. Machuca and Powell arrived at Plaintiff's cell to remove him from the cell, Plaintiff refused to submit to handcuffing and so Machuca and Powell gathered the other Assault Defendants and secured authorization from Salazar for a forcible cell extraction. Id. at ¶ 36.
Shortly after 1:00 p.m., Defendants Sanudo, R. Machuca, A. Machuca, and Powell charged into Plaintiff's cell and knocked him to the floor with a plastic shield. Id. at ¶ 37. While Plaintiff was on the ground, the officers pinned him under the shield, put him in restraints, then pulled down his underwear and sprayed him in the genital area and the face with pepper spray as they beat and kicked him and shouted racial insults. Id. at ¶¶ 38-40. Contrary to prison regulations on the calculated use of force, the Assault Defendants did not videotape the cell extraction and did not bring along a health care professional. Id. at ¶ 49.
The officers then brought Plaintiff to a holding cell with Defendant Salazar and psychiatric technician Munn present. Id. at ¶ 42. Defendant R. Machuca instructed Munn not to record all ofPlaintiff's injuries in his evaluation and not to authorize a decontamination of Plaintiff as required by prison regulations for an inmate exposed to pepper spray. Id. Munn recorded only some of the injuries to Plaintiff's face, and did not record the cuts and bruises on Plaintiff's hands, back, and legs and did not record the pepper spray exposure. Id. at ¶¶ 42-43. While Plaintiff was out of his cell, the Assault Defendants destroyed much of his personal property. Id. at ¶ 44. In addition to physical injuries, Plaintiff suffered psychological trauma that exacerbated his existing mental disorders and resulted in his transfer to the Department of Mental Health in Vacaville in July 2010. Id. at ¶ 50.
After the cell extraction, the Assault Defendants coordinated their stories and cooperated to file false reports which failed to note the involvement of A. Machuca, claimed that Plaintiff had been hiding behind a sheet and charged at the officers as they entered the cell, and omitted facts regarding the insults and physical abuse directed at Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 49. The reports also stated that the pepper spray was discharged accidentally. Id.
Upon returning to SVSP in August of 2010, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal claiming that the Assault Defendants used excessive force in conducting the June 11 cell extraction. Id. at ¶ 51. Salazar arranged to be appointed chief investigator of Plaintiff's grievance and issued a report on October 7, 2010, ignoring Plaintiff's objection that Salazar was involved in the cell extraction itself. Id. at ¶¶ 53-54. Plaintiff alleges numerous deficiencies in the investigation, including that no witness interviews were recorded, written notes were not preserved, material evidence was destroyed, and the final report closely tracked the Assault Defendants' falsified version of events. Id.
Plaintiff filed the instant suit against the Assault Defendants in March 2011. Id. at ¶ 55. Roughly one year later, the Assault Defendants recruited other correctional officers into a conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff for filing suit. Id. In March of 2012, two non-party correctional officers approached Plaintiff and informed him that his request for a cell move wasbeing denied because he had filed the lawsuit, and threatened to fabricate a charge of cell phone use against Plaintiff if he did not abandon the suit. Id at ¶ 56. In April of 2012, Roberto Machuca (brother to Defendants R. Machuca and A. Machuca) falsely accused Plaintiff of cell phone use, triggering a public strip search and a cell search that failed to turn up a phone. Id. at ¶ 57. During both searches, officers intimated to Plaintiff that his problems would cease if he stopped litigating this lawsuit. Id.
On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff returned to SVSP from a settlement conference in this case in Solano State Prison and was processed in SVSP's Receiving and Release area. Id. at ¶ 58-60. During Plaintiff's processing, while Defendant Haldeman was searching Plaintiff's possessions, Plaintiff discussed his lawsuit with another inmate and was overheard by Haldeman, who then told Plaintiff that Id. at ¶ 60. Plaintiff then saw Haldeman take a half pair of scissors from his own pocket and place it in an envelope inside Plaintiff's legal materials. Id at ¶ 61. Haldeman shortly thereafter pulled the scissors from the envelope and announced "This is what I was looking for." Id. By this conduct, "Haldeman evidenced his membership in the conspiracy to pressure Parrish into dismissing his lawsuit[.]" Id. As a result of Haldeman's actions, Plaintiff was charged with possession of a weapon and lost one year's worth of behavioral credits. Id. at ¶ 62. In April 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to CSP-Sacramento and placed in indefinite solitary confinement as a result of his conviction for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braun v. Corr. Officer Sterno
...First Amendment claim, the court dismisses Braun's access-to-courts claim without prejudice. See Parrish v. Solis, No. 11-CV-01438, 2014 WL 1921154, at *13 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2014) (dismissing access-to-courts claim alleging that defendants covered up the evidence that plaintiff needed to p......