Tiede v. Salazar
| Citation | 518 F.Supp.3d 955 |
| Decision Date | 10 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | SA-18-CV-01277-DAE |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
| Parties | Kurt Steven TIEDE, SID #1009352, Plaintiff, v. Javier SALAZAR, Bexar County Sheriff; Lieutenant Arnold Martinez, Bexar County Deputy; Hung Dinh, Bexar County Deputy; Sergeant Miguel Delgado, Bexar County Deputy; Corporal Regina Ramirez, Bexar County Deputy, Defendants. |
Kurt Steven Tiede, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
Susan A. Bowen, Bexar County District Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants.
David A. Ezra, Senior United States District Judge Before the Court are Plaintiff Kurt Steven Tiede's ("Tiede") 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and Tiede's Response to Summary Judgment and his supporting affidavit. (ECF Nos. 36, 60, 78, 97). Based on the analysis set out below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
In October 2018, Tiede was confined in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center ("BCADC") based on a parole violation for a prior offense and a new charge based on the offense of burglary of a vehicle. See https://search.bexar.org/Case/CaseSummary?r=29464124-17a7-49ad-a36e-47fd454ea873&st=s&s=1009352&cs=&ct=&=,,,,,,,,,,,&full=y&= (last visited Feb. 9, 2021). It is undisputed that during Tiede's 2018 confinement, specifically on October 26, 2018, the BCADC experienced a plumbing issue in Unit BE where Tiede was confined. (ECF Nos. 36; 60, Exh. 1, pp. 1–3). The toilets in cells BE 35 and 36 overflowed, flooding the dayroom and numerous cells. (ECF Nos. 36; 60, Exh. 1, p. 3). According to an affidavit and Facility Incident Report prepared by Defendant Deputy Hung Dinh, when he noticed the flooding, he ordered the inmates to return to their cells, but they refused. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, p. 3, Exh. 5, ¶ 4). Deputy Dinh telephoned "the 4th floor Sgt Office" about the flooding and the inmates’ refusals to return to their cells. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, p. 3, Exh. 5, ¶ 4). He avers maintenance was called to shut off the water. (Id. ).
Defendant Corporal Regina Ramirez responded to Unit BE. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 2–4, Exh. 4, ¶ 4). She too ordered the inmates back into their cells, but they refused. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 2–4, Exh. 4, ¶ 5). Corporal Ramirez contacted Defendant Lieutenant Arnold Martinez. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1 pp. 1–3, Exh. 2, ¶ 3, Exh. 4, ¶ 6). Lieutenant Arnold entered Unit BE and asked the inmates "8 or 9 times to return to their cells so that maintenance could come in to make repairs." (ECF No. 60, Exh. 2, ¶ 4). He avers maintenance is on staff in the building twenty–four hours a day, but due to safety concerns, will not enter a Unit until inmates are secured in their cells. (Id. ). This testimony was echoed in the affidavit of Juan Jimenez, a maintenance employee at the BCADC who was called in to attend to the incident. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 6, ¶¶ 2–4).
According to Tiede, during the incident and despite multiple orders to return to their cells, he and other inmates were sitting "peacefully" on tables in the dayroom "to avoid being exposed to sewage water contamination." (ECF No. 36). Lieutenant Martinez states about twenty inmates refused to return to their cells, prompting him to call "a Code 6 and a Code 2 to regain order in the Unit and begin initial cleanup." (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, p. 1, Exh. 2, ¶ 6). The Lieutenant explained that a Code 2 activates a six–man Special Emergency Response Team ("SERT"); a Code 6 activities all on-duty SERT members to assist the six-man team. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 2, ¶ 6). Lieutenant Martinez avers he called the Code 6 because of the number of inmates involved. (Id. ). Tiede claims the Lieutenant called the Codes because Tiede said exposure to the flooding, which he described as sewage water, was "cruel and unusual punishment." (ECF No. 36). When Lieutenant Martinez told the inmates he called the Codes, some ran for their cells.
(ECF No. 60, Exh. 2, ¶ 7). When SERT arrived, most remaining inmates also ran for their cells. (Id. ).
SERT members saw inmates standing and sitting in the dayroom, and according to team leader Deputy Jesse Chavez, inmates were "standing up yelling and not wanting to go into their assign[ed] cells." (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 5). They were ordered onto the floor, according to Tiede, facedown in the flooding waters. (Id. ). Although it appears the water covers the dayroom floor, the level is extremely low, so low that it allowed even those inmates placed face down on the floor to lift their head and avoid contact with it. (ECF Nos. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 36–37; 98). Four inmates refused to get down and SERT utilized force to control these inmates. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 5–11, 14, Exh. 4, ¶ 7). Tiede was not one of the four inmates who refused SERT orders. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 5–11; Exh. 2, ¶ 7, Exh. 4, ¶ 7, Exh. 5, ¶ 9). The SERT action was recorded; Defendants submitted the videos as summary judgment evidence. (ECF Nos. Exh. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 36–37; 98). According to Lieutenant Martinez, after all inmates were secured, those involved in the flooding incident were locked down for forty-eight hours "for their defiant behavior" and to protect the Unit deputies, and to allow the inmates to "cool down." (ECF No. 60, Exh. 2, ¶ 10).
As to the nature of the water that flooded the Unit, Tiede contends it was "contaminated with human feces, urine, and other bio–hazard material," exposing him "significant health risk," especially when he was forced to lie facedown on the floor. (ECF No. 36). Again, the summary judgment evidence shows a very low level of water on the floor, allowing those inmates placed on the floor to avoid it by simply lifting their heads. (ECF Nos. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 36–37; 98). Although Lieutenant Martinez, Corporal Ramirez, and Deputy Dinh claimed not to have seen feces or other biohazardous material in the water, several SERT members stated in their Facility Incident Reports that the water that contained an unstated amount of feces and urine. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 1, pp. 6, 8, 12, 15, Exh. 2, ¶¶ 2, 11, Exh. 4,¶ 5, Exh. 5, ¶ 5). Lieutenant Martinez recommended replacement of only footwear for SERT and other responding officers. (ECF No. 60, ¶ 11).
Tiede contends that following the incident, neither he nor any other inmate was permitted to shower or given clean clothing until either October 28, 2018 or October 31, 2018—Tiede references both dates in his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 36, compare ¶¶ 20, 25, with ¶¶ 20, 24). He claims the inability to shower or change clothing exposed him to potential health risks. (ECF No. 36). Tiede further contends he and other inmates were "denied medical attention." (Id. ).
Although inmates were placed on lockdown for forty–eight hours, Lieutenant Martinez states he did not believe any inmate required medical attention after the incident—other than those subdued by SERT, but if Tiede believed he needed medical attention, he could have requested it even during the lockdown. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 2, ¶ 11). He further states Tiede could have requested new clothing and only those inmates who had refused to return to their cells would have had clothing that was wet anywhere except for the bottom of their pants. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 2, ¶¶ 12, 13). Deputy Dinh states he did not deny any inmate medical care and if he had believed an inmate needed medical attention, he would have called for it. (ECF No. 60, Exh. 5, ¶ 13). He further states that any inmate needing medical care could have requested it. (Id. ).
A little over two months after the flooding incident, Tiede filed this section 1983 action against Sheriff Javier Salazar, Lieutenant Martinez, Corporal Ramirez, Sergeant Miguel Delgado, and Deputy Dinh in their individual capacities. (ECF No. 1). Tiede subsequently amended his Complaint (ECF No. 36). In his Amended Complaint, Tiede contends Defendants’ acts or omissions during and after the October 26, 2018 flooding incident violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. ). More specifically, and liberally construing the allegations in Tiede's Amended Complaint, the Court finds he alleged constitutional violations relating to episodic claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs or safety.2 (Id. ). As relief, Tiede seeks compensatory and punitive damages.3 (Id. ).
The Court finds Tiede's claims should be characterized as "episodic" as opposed to claims based on "jail conditions." See Campos v. Webb Cnty., Tex. , 597 F. App'x 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss. , 74 F.3d 633, 644–45 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). The Fifth Circuit instructs that a pretrial detainee's "constitutional complaints of Fourteenth Amendment violations" are analyzed "under one of two rubrics, ‘jail conditions’ or ‘episodic acts or omissions."4 Id. "Jail condition" challenges are evaluated to determine whether a "particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective." Id. (quoting Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 539, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) ). However, episodic acts or omissions are evaluated to determine whether the pretrial detainee has proven the defendant official "acted or failed to act with subjective deliberate indifference to the detainee's needs." Id. (quoting Hare , 74 F.3d at 636, 647–48 ).
Jail condition challenges are against "general conditions, practices, rules or restrictions of pretrial confinement," e.g:, number of bunks per cell, mail privileges, disciplinary segregation, etc., whereas episodic challenges are against "a jail official's episodic act or omission."
Hare , 74 F.3d at 643. In other words, a claim against jail conditions exists when "a jailer's act or omission ... implement[s] a rule or restriction or otherwise demonstrate[s] the existence of an identifiable intended condition or practice." Id. at 645. Absent an established rule, a jail...
To continue reading
Request your trial