Quiroz v. Short, C 11–0016 LHK PR
| Decision Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. C 11–0016 LHK PR,C 11–0016 LHK PR |
| Citation | 85 F.Supp.3d 1092 |
| Parties | Mark Robert Quiroz, Plaintiff, v. D. Short, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Mark Robert Quiroz, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Susan Eileen Coleman, Ulysses Lorenzo Aguayo, Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; APPOINTING COUNSEL; REFERRING CASE TO SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS
This order supersedes ECF Docket No. 308, which was filed in error.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a third amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that prison official defendants violated his federal and state law rights. Defendant Sgt. D. Short has filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, and defendant has filed a reply.1 Having carefully considered the papers submitted, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant: (1) violated plaintiff's First Amendment right to be free from retaliation; (2) violated plaintiff's right to association/marry; (3) conspired with other defendants to violate plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) violated state law. In response, defendant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity.
The following facts are taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
Plaintiff has been confined in Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in the Secure Housing Unit (“SHU”) since February 1992. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) Defendant worked as a Sergeant in PBSP's Institutional Gang Investigations Unit (“IGI”) from February 2009 through March 2010. (Short Decl. ¶ 2.) In addition to responding to appeals of inmate administrative grievances at the second level of review, defendant also monitored and controlled gang activities at PBSP and within the SHU. (Id. ¶¶ 3–4.) Plaintiff is a validated member of the Mexican Mafia. (Pl. Depo. at 14:18–22.) Members of the Mexican Mafia frequently communicate with each other, as well as with members of the public, through the mail to engage in criminal activity. (Short Decl. ¶ 8.)
Defendant also had the responsibility of reviewing incoming and outgoing mail when the IGI staff was short-handed. (Id. ¶ 4.) For incoming non-confidential mail, mail is inspected prior to delivery to the inmate in order to, inter alia, prevent the introduction of contraband or illegal communications. (Id. ¶ 5.) Heightened scrutiny of validated gang members' mail is important because their mail often contains secret codes and instructions. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff alleges that in 2006, prison officials, including defendant, began to engage in a series of retaliatory actions, mainly by tampering with plaintiff's incoming and outgoing mail. Plaintiff claims that these actions were in retaliation for filing a lawsuit in Quiroz v. Horel, No. 05–2938 JF (N.D. Cal. filed July 19, 2005) (“Quiroz I ”); for participating and assisting another inmate's lawsuit in Sandoval v. Tilton, No. 08–0865 JW (“Sandoval ”);2 and for filing grievances from 2008 through 2010.3
On October 26, 2009, plaintiff submitted an administrative grievance challenging the stopping of an incoming letter addressed to plaintiff from plaintiff's niece, Lorie Quiroz. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 70.) Co-defendants Officers Pimentel and Brandon informed plaintiff that the letter was stopped because it was found to promote gang activities. (Id. ) Plaintiff pointed out that his niece was a mother and grandmother without an arrest record and that plaintiff believed that the IGI prison staff misinterpreted the contents of the letter. (Id. ) On December 1, 2009, defendant interviewed plaintiff for purposes of plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his administrative grievance. Plaintiff asked defendant for proof that the letter promoted gang activities, but defendant refused to provide it. (Id. ) Plaintiff told defendant that “this stopping of my niece's letter is ongoing retaliation and harassment by the IGI and ISU because of my lawsuit and 602 appeals and you know that.” (Opp. at 8.) On December 8, 2009, defendant recommended that plaintiff's appeal be denied, and Warden Jacquez denied plaintiff's appeal at the second level of review. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 70.) Specifically, the second level of review response stated that the letter was stopped because Lorie Quiroz was relaying information about a gang affiliate; however, the response did not go into further detail about the contents of the letter. (Id. ) The letter also contained 40 embossed envelopes which were not gang related, and those were provided to plaintiff. (Short Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff appealed that decision, and also complained that plaintiff was not permitted to mail the disallowed letter back to the sender, in violation of California regulations. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 70.) Plaintiff asserts that defendant helped to conspire and further the ongoing retaliation against plaintiff by conducting a sham investigation into the appeal of plaintiff's administrative grievance because plaintiff had exercised his right to engage in protected conduct. (Id. )
On January 13, 2010, plaintiff received two letters from his girlfriend, Vivian Chavez, in which she stated that she received a letter written by plaintiff which was intended for another woman named Yvette Alvidrez. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 74.) Plaintiff asserts that defendant deliberately enclosed the letter for Ms. Alvidrez into an envelope addressed to Ms. Chavez, along with a letter intended for Ms. Chavez. (Id. ¶ 76.) Plaintiff states that the letter for Ms. Alvidrez was dated two months earlier than his letter to Ms. Chavez. (Id. ) Plaintiff complained that defendant's action was intended to destroy plaintiff's relationship with Ms. Chavez. In an administrative grievance, plaintiff's complaint was processed as a staff complaint, and it was found that defendant did violate CDCR policy. (Id. ) Plaintiff asserts that defendant switched the letters in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of protected conduct. (Id. ) Defendant admits that he purposely switched the address for Ms. Alvidrez's letter, but states that he did so in an effort to alert the women that plaintiff was being unfaithful to them. (Short Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendant reasoned that in his experience, inmates often wrote false love letters to vulnerable women in an effort to solicit money. (Id. ) As a result of plaintiff's administrative grievance, it was found that defendant violated prison policy. (Opp. at 30.)
On November 17, 2009, plaintiff placed in the mail a personal drawing to a friend, Lisa Gallegos. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 80.) On January 20, 2010, Ms. Gallegos informed plaintiff that she never received the drawing. (Id. ) On January 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a grievance stating that the drawing had been intentionally discarded. On April 26, 2010, plaintiff's appeal of his administrative grievance was denied at the second level of review. The response stated that there was no evidence that the IGI stopped the mail because there was no record of the required forms needed when mail is stopped. (Id. ) Plaintiff appealed that finding and restated that he believed someone discarded the drawing because the Third Watch Officer picked up the mail with the drawing, processed the mail, and forwarded it to the IGI for monitoring. (Id. ) In the federal complaint, plaintiff asserts that defendant was the one monitoring plaintiff's mail at this time. (Id. ) Plaintiff claims that defendant discarded the drawing in retaliation for plaintiff's protected conduct.
On January 5, 2010, plaintiff received a letter from Ms. Alvidrez, but the stationary that was included with that letter had been discarded. (Id. ¶ 83.) Plaintiff claims that defendant tampered with his mail in retaliation for plaintiff's protected conduct.
On February 12, 2010, defendant issued plaintiff a CDC 115 rules violation report (“RVR”) for promoting gang activity. (Id. ¶ 82.) On January 6, 2010, defendant reviewed an outgoing letter written by plaintiff to Ms. Gallegos. The RVR accused plaintiff of instructing Ms. Gallegos as to how to buy a dictionary for an inmate named Alfred. (Id. ¶ 85.) Defendant learned later that Alfred Sosa, another validated Mexican Mafia inmate member, had received a Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. (Short Decl. ¶ 16.) The dictionary was purchased by Ms. Gallegos, who was a confirmed secretary of Mexican Mafia member Michael DeLia, who was also Sosa's former crime partner. (Id. ) As a result, defendant believed that plaintiff facilitated a Ms. Gallegos, a gang affiliate, and her purchase of a dictionary for Sosa, and violated the rule of not knowingly promoting or assisting any gang. (Id. ) Plaintiff was found guilty of promoting gang activity even though the reviewer admitted that the offense was not explicitly listed as a “serious offense”. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 85.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant conspired with others to create this false RVR in retaliation for plaintiff's protected conduct.
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits demonstrate that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Garlick v. Cnty. of Kern
- Moore v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 2:19-cv-844-JAM-KJN PS
- Uhuru v. Bonnifield
- Valenzuela v. Torres