Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02644/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02644-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZURI S. YOUNG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2644 LKK CMK P

vs.

G. STRATTON,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this civil rights action

against defendant Broddrick, defendant Curren, defendant Murphy, defendant Porter, and

defendant Terry. The case is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c) for findings

and recommendations on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P 56(c). 

I. Standard of Review

On a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c), the court must 

accept the evidence of the non-moving party as true and draw all reasonable inferences of fact in

favor of the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there exists no genuine issue as to any

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex

Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 56(c)). If the moving party

meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish that a genuine issue

as to any material fact does actually exist. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. V. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The party opposing summary judgment may not rest on

conclusory allegations, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of

material fact. See Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 422 (9th Cir. 1978)(involving a pro se

litigant); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 586 n. 11. When the record taken as a whole could not

lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material

fact for trial. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 

On May 24, 2004, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a

motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

II. Background

The crux of plaintiff’s claim is that defendants failed to protect him from harm in

violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliated against him in violation of the First

Amendment. Plaintiff also asserts that defendants conspired against him.

Taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the facts are as follows. Plaintiff is an

inmate at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-S). Plaintiff has been diagnosed with

psychiatric disorders and was attacked by other inmates while incarcerated in the Los Angeles

County jail. The attack caused plaintiff to have reoccurring nightmares of violence and

flashbacks; this made it impossible for him to share a cell with another inmate. Plaintiff warned

CSP-S staff about his inability to be double-celled. 

Despite plaintiff’s warnings, he was kept on double-cell status. This was because

he did not have a history of being a sexual predator or assaulting cell mates. Plaintiff disagreed

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

with the decision to keep him on double cell status. Plaintiff states that after filing complaints

regarding his double cell status, defendant Porter retaliated against him by housing him with an

HIV positive inmate. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Porter was further motivated to retaliate

against plaintiff because she knew that plaintiff had won a prior lawsuit against her brother-inlaw.

In October 2003, plaintiff was moved into a cell with inmate Hodge. Plaintiff

continued to request a single cell assignment because he and Hodge did not get along. On

October 11, 2003, plaintiff and Hodge got into an altercation. Plaintiff states that his injuries

were downplayed by prison staff, and plaintiff was charged with a mutual combat violation. 

Plaintiff avers that defendants “staged the fight” that he had with inmate Hodge. Plaintiff states

that defendant Curren failed to protect his safety by not filing paperwork to ensure that plaintiff

be single celled. Plaintiff states that defendants Terry, Murphy, and Broddrick were aware of the

complaint that he submitted regarding possible violence between himself and Hodge, but

disregarded the risk. 

III. Discussion

Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s

deliberate indifference, retaliation, and conspiracy claims. They further contend that they are

shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 

1. Failure to Protect

Plaintiff claims that, by forcing him to have a cell mate, defendants were

deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to plaintiff’s safety. 

Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of prison

inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1984). A prisoner may establish a claim

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against prison officials when the officials acted

with “deliberate indifference” to the threat of serious harm or injury by another prisoner. See

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982). To show deliberate indifference, a

plaintiff must show that prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate

safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This standard does not require that a prison guard or official

know that with a “moral certainty” that an inmate is in danger of violence before the guard is

obligated to take steps to prevent an assault. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir.

1981). However, the prison guard must have more than a mere suspicion that violence will occur. 

See id. 

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that defendants had reason to know that he was in

danger of violence because he had warned staff of “[his] incompatibility to being housed in a

double-cell and had advised the CDC employees for safety and security reasons why they should

not force him to cell-up with other inmates.” (Am. Compl. 5.) Plaintiff avers that he had

specifically informed staff that he had a problem being celled with inmate Hodge prior to the

October 11, 2003 mutual combat. (Id.) Specifically, plaintiff states in his complaint that he had

filed an appeal and a cell move slip stating that he and Hodge did not get along. (Id.) Plaintiff

states that he informed defendant Terry that he wanted to see the lieutenant or have a cell move

right away. (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that officers “set-up staged cell fights amongst rival

prisoners....” (Id. 4.) 

In their motion for summary judgment, defendants argue that plaintiff cannot

establish that defendants had reason to know that plaintiff was in danger of violence from a cell

mate. Defendants offer evidence that since entering the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation System eleven years ago, plaintiff has consistently been cleared for double celling.

(Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J., Ex. Y.) Between March 2001 and March 2005, plaintiff was housed with

thirty-nine different inmates with only one incident of violence—the incident with inmate Hodge. 

(Id.) In a sworn statement, inmate Hodge relates that he and plaintiff are related and personally

knew each other; they lived together for two months prior to the October 11, 2003 incident. (Id.

at Ex. X.) Hodge states that, two weeks prior to October 11, 2003, plaintiff requested a

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

convenience cell change–plaintiff asked to be placed in a single cell, not to be moved to another

double cell to get away from Hodge. (Id.) Plaintiff had prepared an appeal seeking a convenience

cell change prior to October 11, 2003 but had never filed it. (Id.) Plaintiff never told Hodge that

he felt threatened by him; plaintiff did say something to the effect that he and Hodge did not get

along. (Id.) 

Defendants Broddrick, Terry, and Murphy state that they had no knowledge that

plaintiff felt threatened by being housed with inmate Hodge. (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J., Exs. R, T, &

S.) Each of the defendants aver that plaintiff never made any statements to them concerning a

threat of violence from inmate Hodge. (Id.) The record shows that the grievance that plaintiff

has attached to his amended complaint, which was filed on October 12, 2003, makes no mention

of any threat of violence to plaintiff. (Id. at Ex. R, Attach. A; see also, Am. Compl., Ex. A.) 

Further, the record shows that after the October 11, 2003 incident, plaintiff continued to make

threats of violence if he was housed with another inmate. (Id. at Ex. Q.) However, these threats

were determined to be “generic” because plaintiff was making them just because he did not want

a cell mate and not because he was under any threat of harm. (Id.) 

Defendant Curren offers evidence that plaintiff’s mental condition did not require

single cell status. (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J., Ex. V.) Plaintiff’s treatment with Dr. Curren did not

concern plaintiff’s request for single cell status. (Id.) The evidence shows that plaintiff never

mentioned needing a single cell or being threatened by a cell mate to Dr. Curren. (Id.) 

In his reply to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff states that

“defendants [sic] statements are not true or correct.” (Pl.’s Opp. and Obj. to Def.’s Statement of

Undisputed Facts at 1.) He includes a “statement of undisputed facts,” which consists of

allegations that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have filled his central file with

lies. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that defendants Broddrick, Murphy, and Terry admit that they

knew of the procedures for moving inmates and knew that plaintiff filed an appeal prior to

October 11, 2003; however, plaintiff does not assert that this appeal stated that plaintiff felt he

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

was in danger, and that defendants failed to move plaintiff. Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts to

support his assertion that defendants staged fights between inmates. (Id.)

The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that there exists a genuine issue

of material fact as to whether defendants Broddrick, Terry, Murphy, and Curren acted with

deliberate indifference to a serious theat of harm to plaintiff. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586

(noting that once defendants have met their initial burden of informing the court for the basis of

their motion and identifying those portions of the record which they believe demonstrate an

absence of material fact, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish a genuine issue as to any

material fact that actually does exist). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he ever indicated to any

of the defendants that he felt that he was under threat of harm from his cell mate. Instead, the

evidence shows that plaintiff made several attempts to be moved into a single cell situation;

however, a desire to move into a single cell situation would not put defendants on notice of any

threat of harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff has not established that defendants had any reason to suspect

that he was in danger of violence from his cell mate, inmate Hodge. Accordingly, the court

recommends that defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

claim be granted. 

2. Retaliation and Conspiracy

Plaintiff appears to claim that defendant Porter placed him with an HIV positive

cell mate in retaliation for plaintiff’s “previous lawsuit victories against the L.A. Sheriffs and

CDC prison guards at Chino and Folsom.” (Am. Compl. at 9.) Plaintiff also makes vague

assertions of defendants conspiring against him. For example, plaintiff asserts that “..even the

administration, who I never see, and are “unknown defendants” [sic] make plots and give the

CDC foot soldiers ‘Orders’ to carry out hidden acts of retaliation.” (Id.) 

Within the prison context, a viable claim of retaliation entails five basic elements:

“(1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate(2) because of (3)

that prisoner’s protected conduct and that such action (4) chilled plaintiff’s First Amendment

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Defendant Porter is the only defendant against whom plaintiff makes specific retaliation 1

claims. He makes several vague retaliation claims about other named and unnamed defendants. 

7

rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v.

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005). The court must afford appropriate deference to

prison officials in the evaluation of the proffered legitimate correctional reasons for conduct

alleged to be retaliatory. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). The burden

rests on plaintiff to demonstrate that there were no legitimate correctional purposes motivating the

actions of which he complains. See id. at 808. 

State actors, acting in concert to deprive an individual of constitutional rights, may

be held liable for conspiracy under § 1983. See Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280, 293 (9th Cir.

1959) rev’d on other grounds, 300 F.2d 24, 30 (9th Cir. 1962). To be successful on a conspiracy

claim, a plaintiff must show that defendants conspired, or acted jointly or in concert and that some

overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. See id. at 292-294. 

It is undisputed that filing lawsuits is protected conduct. See Schroeder v.

McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that filing lawsuits is a First Amendment

right of fundamental importance to prisoners). Thus, the question for the court is whether there is

a genuine factual dispute about whether defendant Porter housed plaintiff with an HIV positive 1

cell mate in retaliation for filing lawsuits. Defendants have put forth evidence showing that

defendant Porter was unaware that plaintiff had filed previous lawsuits and that she was not, as

plaintiff stated, related to the defendant in one of plaintiff’s previous lawsuits. (Defs.’ Mot. For

Summ. J. at Ex. U.) Defendants have put forth evidence showing that defendant Porter was

unaware of the HIV status of any inmates. (Id.) Beyond the vague allegations in his complaint,

plaintiff has not put forth any evidence which would establish an issue of fact as to this issue. See

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Additionally, plaintiff has put forth no evidence which would

indicate that defendant Porter had anything to do with the making decision about with whom

plaintiff should be celled. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to set establish the

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

elements of a retaliation claim and recommends that summary judgment be granted on this claim. 

Beyond making vague assertions in his amended complaint, plaintiff does not set 

forth any facts which would show that defendants conspired against him. These vague allegations

are not sufficient to set forth a disputed issue of material fact on this claim. See Matsushita, 475

U.S. at 586. Accordingly, the court recommends that summary judgment be granted on this

claim. 

3. Qualified Immunity

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff’s §

1983 claims. The first step in a qualified immunity analysis “is to consider the materials

submitted in support of, and in opposition to, summary judgment in order to decide whether a

constitutional right would be violated if all facts are viewed in favor of plaintiff.” Jeffers v.

Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 909 (9th Cir. 2001). If no constitutional right would have been violated

were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified

immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). 

As discussed above, the court finds that, even when viewing the facts in a light

most favorable to plaintiff, no constitutional rights have been violated. Accordingly, defendants

are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claims that his First and Eighth Amendment rights

were violated. 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion for

summary judgment be granted in its entirety and plaintiff’s complaint dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 7, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 07/11/06 Page 9 of 9