Singleton v. Hernandez
| Decision Date | 15 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-02462-BAS-NLS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | KELVIN X. SINGLETON, Plaintiff, v. G. HERNANDEZ, A. SANCHEZ, Defendants. |
(1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION
[ECF No 155];
[ECF No. 154];
[ECF No. 131];
Plaintiff Kelvin Singleton is a California state prisoner who, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Section 1983 action to challenge the alleged violation of his federal constitutional rights based on the alleged conduct of certain prison officials during his incarceration at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD").
Singleton alleges that he "was free from RVRs"—Rules Violation Reports ("RVR")—during his time at RJD until after he sought to expose alleged misconduct by certain prison officers who responded to a January 2, 2014 prison riot. Singleton was in the "general area" where the riot broke out, but contends he did not participate. Former defendant Martinez, however, issued Singleton an RVR shortly after the riot charging Singleton with participation, which Singleton avers was "falsified." Defendant Sanchez, the hearing officer for the riot RVR hearing in which Singleton was found guilty of participation and lost good-time credits, allegedly denied Singleton witnesses that would have "exonerated" Singleton. These witnesses were officers who Singleton contends withheld exculpatory information that would prove his innocence. Singleton pursued grievances related to the alleged prison officer misconduct in handling the riot and alleged due process violations in the investigation and hearing. In August 2014, Singleton filed a related state court lawsuit against various prison officials, including Defendant Hernandez. Sanchez was not a named defendant.
Singleton alleges that between January 2015 and June 2016, prison officials retaliated against him because of his grievances and state court lawsuit. The alleged retaliation consisted of urinalysis drug tests outside of his regular testing through the Substance Abuse Program ("SAP"). The samples for these additional tests were allegedly tampered with and their positive results were the basis for additional RVRsissued against him. Singleton claims that at the urinalysis RVR hearings for these tests, he was denied supporting witnesses for his defense. Because Singleton was found guilty at these RVR hearings, he lost good-time credits and was subjected to mandatory urinalysis testing, which increased in frequency with each RVR guilt finding. Singleton further contends that prison officials retaliated against him by placing a confidential memorandum into his prison file, which allegedly falsely accused him of being a gang member who transported drugs into the prison through visits with his brother. Finally, Singleton contends that the multiple RVR guilt findings based on the urinalysis tests caused him to be transferred from RJD to the maximum security "violent" prison where he currently resides, all of which was also part of the alleged retaliation.
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the only claims which remain in this suit—First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourteenth Amendment denial of due process claims against Defendants Hernandez and Sanchez. (ECF No. 131, 138.) Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on the cross-motions. (ECF No. 154.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny Singleton's motion. (Id. at 9-11, 21.) More importantly for the purposes of the present order, the R&R recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion. The R&R concludes summary judgment (1) is appropriate on Singleton's retaliation claim against Sanchez and on the due process claims against both Defendants and (2) is inappropriate on Singleton's retaliation claim against Hernandez. (Id. at 11-22.) Objections to the R&R were due by January 25, 2019. (Id. at 22.) Defendants have not filed any objection. Singleton, however, has filed a timely Objection, which objects to all partial summary judgment recommendations. (ECF No. 155.) Replies to any objections were due by February 8, 2019. (ECF No. 154 at 22.) Defendants have not replied to Singleton's Objection.
For the reasons herein, the Court (1) overrules Singleton's Objections, (2) approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety, (3) denies in full Singleton's motion for summary judgment, (4) grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (5) dismisses with prejudice the remaining claims against Sanchez and the due process claim against Hernandez.
Singleton has been incarcerated since 2001. (ECF No. 32, First Amended Compl. (hereinafter "FAC") at 2; ECF No. 138-6 () In October 2012, Singleton transferred to RJD. (FAC at 2.) During the relevant time period at RJD, Singleton was subject to randomized drug testing as part of the Substance Abuse Program ("SAP") independently of the urinalysis testing he challenges in this lawsuit. 3
During the relevant period, Defendant Hernandez served as the head of the Investigative Services Unit ("ISU") at RJD, which required him to supervise RJD's drug testing program as the Drug Testing Coordinator ("DTC"). Although Hernandez was responsible for oversight of the drug testing program, he was not involved in the actual collection or transport of urine samples. (Id. ¶¶ 3-6.) Hernandez designated officers to collect samples and the collecting officer issued an RVR for any positive test result. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) As DTC, Hernandez had to review all RJD's drug testing logs for accuracy and completeness. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Defendant Sanchez acted as a Rule Violation hearing officer for inmates in disciplinary proceedings at RJD, including during the relevant period. In the five years preceding September 2018, Sanchez had served as the hearing officer in 600 to 700 inmate disciplinary hearings. (Id.)
The Prison Riot and Riot RVR Hearing. The underlying incident that spawned the events culminating in the present litigation was a January 2, 2014 riot at RJD between Mexican and Black prisoners. (FAC at 2-3.) Singleton was in "the general area" where the riot broke out, but avers that he was not an aggressor. (Id.) Singleton was identified as a participant in the riot and placed into administrative segregation pending a hearing. (Id.; Sanchez Decl. Ex. 1 at 7.) Former defendant Officer Martinez, an officer who was on the yard at the time of the riot, issued Singleton an RVR, charging Singleton with "participation in a riot." (Singleton Decl. ¶ 5; Sanchez Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1 at 7 (RVR Log # FA-01-14-035).)
On January 9, 2014, after the issuance of the RVR, Singleton filed a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Form 22 "[a]ddressing thenegligence of staff and how [officer] N. Matthews told defendant Hernandez he witnessed the Mexicans attack the Blacks." (Singleton Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) An RJD officer compiled an investigative report on January 24, 2014, and took down Singleton's statement regarding the riot. (Sanchez Decl. Ex. 1 at 13-14.) The officer also recorded responses by officers who Singleton identified as "staff witnesses" he wanted to call at the RVR hearing, including former defendant Officers Matthews, Hernandez, and Hurm, but they generally refused to provide substantive comments. (Id.) Officer Martinez responded to several of Singleton's written questions. (Id.)
At some point, Singleton completed another Form 22 as a "disposition statement (prior to hearing)," which Officer Juarez, another RJD officer, received on January 26, 2014. (Singleton Decl. Ex. 12.) Singleton stated that he was not "guilty" of participation in the riot and "I am unable to adequately prepare my defense due to the yard officers on duty failing to provide reports[.]" (Id.) After Juarez responded on January 30, 2014, that the form was not the proper procedure to complain about the outcome of an RVR, Singleton responded on February 12, 2014, after his RVR hearing. (Id.) Singleton asserted that he was providing a copy of "what I gave the SHO" "because I know/knew that 'inappropriate' results to come" and "I had to notify the appropriate staff the above is my statement on the RVR should SHO Sanchez decide to [sic] something otherwise." (Id.) Singleton was informed that he should follow the appeals process for any RVR concerns. (Id.)
On February 8, 20144, Sanchez presided over a "two-minute" RVR hearing concerning Singleton's alleged participation in the riot. (Singleton Decl. ¶ 6;Sanchez Decl. ¶ 7.) Singleton apparently gave Sanchez "a written copy of [his] pleading at the RVR hearing," which Singleton identifies as the Form 22 he sent to Juarez before the hearing. (Singleton Decl. ¶ 19.) Sanchez denied Singleton's request to call Hernandez, Matthews, and Hurm as witnesses because "they did not have any more pertinent information" on the riot. (Singleton Dec. ¶ 8; Sanchez Decl. Ex. 1 at 9.) Sanchez permitted Singleton to call Martinez. Although Singleton avers that Sanchez "refused to question Martinez at the RVR hearing," the RVR record shows that Sanchez dismissed Martinez because Singleton had no questions for him. (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1 at 9; Singleton Dec. ¶ 18.) Sanchez found Singleton guilty and assessed Singleton 90-days loss of behavior credits. (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1 at 10.) At the end of the hearing, Singleton told Sanchez, "Fuck that, I'll see you on the yard."...
To continue reading
Request your trial