Samaniego v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Decision Date: 17 June 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-0839 JLT BAK (EPG)
• Parties: IVAN SAMANIEGO, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

IVAN SAMANIEGO, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-0839 JLT BAK (EPG)

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 17, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 26)

Ivan Samaniego asserts his civil rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution- Tehachapi. Samaniego contends he witnessed the assault of an inmate by CCI correctional officers and suffered retaliation for coming forward as a witness. He asserts the retaliatory acts continued after he was transferred to Kern Valley State Prison. Samaniego seeks to hold correctional officers liable for violating his rights under the First Amendment and Eighth Amendment. In addition, Samaniego seeks to hold W.J. Sullivan and Christian Pfeiffer, policy-makers for CCI-Tehachapi and KVSP, liable for the First Amendment violations.^[1] (See generally Doc. 23.)

Defendants seek dismissal of Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting Samaniego fails to allege facts sufficient to support his

1

claims. (Doc. 26.) Samaniego opposes the motion, alleging the facts alleged are sufficient. (Doc. 28.) The Court found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument, and the motion was taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (See Doc. 30.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

I. Background and Plaintiff's Allegations^[2]

Samaniego alleges that he “witnessed the unprovoked beating by several CCI Correctional Officers of fellow CCI inmate, Joe Nino, outside of Samaniego's cell” on December 31, 2018. (Doc. 23 at 7, ¶ 27.) According to Samaniego, “once [he] came forward as a witness to this particular assault against Nino, certain CCI Correctional Officers aggressively initiated a pattern of harassment, abuse and retaliation against Samaniego.” (Id.)

Samaniego asserts he “was attacked and brutally beaten by several CCI Correctional Officers” on May 24, 2019. (Doc. 23 at 7, ¶ 28.) He alleges Officers Castillo, Weiss, Gray, Lugue, Perez, Castellanos, and Zavaleta-along with unidentified “Doe” defendants- participated in a “cell extraction” that was staged and “a complete fabrication.” (Id. at 8, ¶ 31.) Rather, Samaniego contends correctional officers “body slammed, punched and kicked Plaintiff without justification.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges:

[E]ach Defendant who participated in the “cell extraction” knew it was staged, conspired in it observed it, and aided or abetted it, doing so with unconscionable animus and malice, undertaken with the intent to cause Plaintiff's death. The Correctional Officers continued to beat Plaintiff after he was on the floor and unable to defend himself. These same named Defendants prepared a narcotic liquid substance on a CDCR - issued baton and raped and tortured Plaintiff by forcefully inserting this instrument inside Plaintiff's rectum. The intent of the Individual Defendant perpetrators was to insert this foreign narcotic substance into Plaintiff's system, take Plaintiff back to his cell, murder him by staging a fake “suicide, ” then hope and expect that the narcotic substance would be found in Plaintiff's system during a subsequent autopsy, in an attempt to claim Plaintiff was “on drugs” and hung himself

(Id.) Samaniego alleges he “suffered numerous injuries, including but not limited to, a concussion, lacerations to various body parts and permanent eye socket damage.” (Id., ¶ 28.) He contends the correctional officers are “liable for [his] injuries, either because they were integral participants in the misconduct, or because they failed to intervene when they had the opportunity and duty to do so and

2

prevent these violations.” (Doc. 23 at 13, ¶ 38.) Thus, Samaniego seeks to hold the correctional officers liable for violations of his civil rights arising under the First and Eighth Amendments. (See generally id. at 8-17.)

Samaniego seeks to hold the warden of CCI Tehachapi, defendant Sullivan, liable for the constitutional violations. (Doc. 23 at 9-10, ¶¶ 33-34.) Samaniego asserts “Sullivan had direct, personal knowledge of rampant incidents, including numerous administrative 602 claims and lawsuits brought by inmates housed at CCI Tehachapi against CCI staff, primarily first line Correctional Officers.” (Id. at 9, ¶ 33.) Samaniego contends that “Sullivan was aware of the December 31, 2018 incident that Samaniego witnessed and provided a statement regarding the beating of CCI inmate Joe Nino, who filed a timely 602 claim.” (Id. at 9-10, ¶ 34.) Samaniego alleges: “Sullivan knew of this beating and of Samaniego's involvement as witness because part of Sullivan's job duties as CCI Warden is to review such claim forms for possible disciplinary actions that may be brought against CCI personnel.” (Id. at 10, ¶ 34.) He also asserts: “Sullivan knew that Samaniego's involvement as a witness to the systemic excessive force and retaliation undertaken by CCI's rogue Correctional Officers would undoubtedly ‘put a target' on Samaniego's back.” (Id.) Samaniego alleges the warden “ignored ... the clear danger to his personal, physical well-being, by condoning, encouraging, fostering and/or ratifying the unlawful conduct” of the defendant correctional officers. (Id.)

On July 19, 2019, Samaniego was transferred to Kern Valley State Prison. (Doc. 23 at 7, ¶ 29.) However, Samaniego contends he continues to suffer “retaliatory tactics and behavior by CDCR personnel ... after his transfer to the KVSP facility.” (Id. at 14, ¶ 45.) Samaniego alleges the warden of KVSP, defendant Pfeiffer, “had or should have had in his capacity as KVSP warden, direct, firsthand knowledge of Samaniego's personal file and identification of Samaniego as a ‘target' upon [his] transfer from CCI to KVSP in July 2019.” (Id. at 11, ¶ 35.) According to Samaniego:

Pfeiffer's awareness of Samaniego's personal file upon transfer to KVSP, including the severe beating that Samaniego sustained at CCI on May 24, 2019, provided sufficient notice to Pfeiffer of who, what and why Samaniego had become - and remained: a target of the corrupt, criminal CDCR Correctional Officers who run the daily CDCR activities, including at KVSP. Also, on information and belief, Pfeiffer knew of the ongoing, widespread, constant beatings and use of excessive force by these corrupt Correctional Officers, who ruled the cell blocks and yards with intimidation, threats, and with brutal and violent attacks against defenseless inmates.

3

(Id. at 12, ¶ 36.) Samaniego asserts he is suffering “retaliatory tactics” at KSVP “in the form of threats, verbal abuse, and with regard to [his] medical needs, food preparation; housing assignments; receipt of mail and common inmate rights.” (Id. at 15, ¶ 45.) He reports he “has filed at least eight (8) 602 complaints involving charges against KVSP Correctional Officers for: physical intimidation, denial of medical care, theft of personal property and intentional placement .. in non[-]segregated housing, purposely putting his life in danger..” (Id. at 12, ¶ 36.) Samaniego asserts that “instead of taking proper steps to discipline Individual Defendants, ” Pfeiffer condoned, encouraged, fostered and/or ratified the unlawful conduct. (Id., ¶ 37.)

Samaniego seeks to hold both wardens Sullivan and Pfeiffer liable “for [their] own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision or control of his subordinates..., or for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations which [the] Second Amended Complaint allege, or for the conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.” (Doc. 23 at 10-11, ¶ 34; see also id. at 11-12, ¶ 37.)

On May 24, 2021, Samaniego initiated this action by filing a complaint for violations of his civil rights (Doc. 1), which he amended on November 29, 2021 (Doc. 12). Defendants Sullivan and Pfeiffer moved to dismiss the claims against them, and the motion was granted on January 14, 2022. (Docs. 14, 22.) To the extent the claims were raised against the wardens in their official capacity, the Court dismissed the claims without leave to amend. (Id. at 9.) However, the Court granted leave to amend to the extent the claims were raised against the wardens in their individual capacities. (Id. at 8.)

Samaniego filed his Second Amended Complaint on February 14, 2022. (Doc. 23.) Defendants moved to dismiss all claims in the SAC on March 21, 2022. (Doc. 26.) Samaniego filed his opposition to the motion on April 4, 2022 (Doc. 28), to which Samaniego replied on April 19, 2022 (Doc. 29).

II. Legal Standards for a Motion to Dismiss

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when “the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, under Rule 12(b)(6), “review is limited to the complaint alone.” Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993).

4

The Supreme Court held: “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Court explained,

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads

...