Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00266-30/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN MURILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. HOLLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 147, 153)

Plaintiff Joaquin Murillo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 29, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 147) be denied because 

there are genuine issues of material fact on the questions of whether Defendants Warden K. 

Holland and Deputy Warden J. Gutierrez are entitled to qualified immunity and whether they

acted with deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm to inmate safety when responding to 

inmate complaints of sleep deprivation caused by noisy “Guard One” welfare checks, in which 

prison guards strike a metal plate on each cell door with a metal pipe every 30 minutes. (Doc. No. 

153.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice 

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 30.) On 

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 162 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

2

August 12, 2024, Defendants filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 155.) Plaintiff did not file a response thereto or objections of his own.

In their objections, Defendants primarily argue that “the magistrate judge erred in finding 

that the rationale in Rico v. Duarte [980 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 2020)] does not apply to the facts in 

this case,” and when properly applied to this case, the Ninth Circuit’s qualified immunity holding 

in Rico “compels the conclusion that existing case law did not provide Defendants Holland and 

Gutierrez with notice that creating noise while conducting court-ordered suicide-prevention 

welfare checks was unlawful.” (Id. at 1, 3.) Having considered Defendants’ arguments, the 

undersigned is not persuaded that the findings and recommendations improperly focused on the 

specific facts and circumstances in Rico, namely the unique design of the Pelican Bay prison 

where the plaintiff in Rico was incarcerated, (id. at 4–6), because the Ninth Circuit itself 

emphasized these distinctions in the Rico decision. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the 

unique features in the Pelican Bay prison that contributed to the noise level of the welfare checks: 

Compared to Guard One’s use in other [California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)] prisons, conducting the 

checks creates more noise at Pelican Bay because of the building’s 

circular design. While many other CDCR facilities are arranged 

along a straight hall, Pelican Bay’s [Security Housing Unit (“SHU”)]

contains six pods arranged around a circular core. The door to each 

pod is made of metal. Inside each pod, two floors of four cells line 

one side of the pod. Metal stairs connect the two floors of cells on 

the other side. The door to each cell is also made of metal.

Each time a pod door opens and closes, the door makes a loud noise 

for approximately twelve seconds. When the door fully closes, it 

makes a loud sound that resonates through the walls. Inmates can 

hear the doors of all six pods opening and closing. As the officers 

conduct their rounds, inmates can also hear the noise of the officers’

boots on the metal stairs and the metal-on-metal noise of the wands 

hitting the discs on every cell in their own pod and the two 

neighboring pods.

Rico v. Ducart, 980 F.3d 1292, 1295–96 (9th Cir. 2020). In its qualified immunity analysis, the 

Ninth Circuit relied on these structural features in reaching its conclusion that “on the specific 

facts presented here, every reasonable official would not have understood that how they 

performed the court-ordered Guard One checks violated the Constitution.” Id. at 1299 (emphasis 

added). The Ninth Circuit further explained:

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 162 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

3

Our mandate to examine the particular facts, including what caused 

Rico’s alleged sleep deprivation, reveals that the challenged noise 

arose from activity that was inherently noisy in a facility the very 

construction of which made difficult quietly conducting round-theclock welfare checks that defendants were ordered by the Coleman

court [Coleman v. Brown, No. 2:90-cv-0520-KJM-DAD, Doc. 5271 

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2015)] to perform.

...

Existing caselaw did not provide insight into the lawfulness of 

creating noise while conducting court-ordered suicide-prevention 

welfare checks in a maximum security facility built of concrete, 

metal, and steel.

Id. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that the plaintiff’s allegations in Rico also focused on 

the structural design of Pelican Bay prison and the impact of that design on the noise level of the 

welfare checks:

According to Rico’s allegations, much of the noise that kept him 

awake resulted from the design of the Pelican Bay SHU and use of 

the Guard One system in and of itself—not the allegedly haphazard 

implementation of that system by the floor officers. Rico blames 

much of the noise on the metal doors of the pods, the metal-on-metal 

contact of the Guard One wands with the metal discs, the metal 

staircases, and the circular design of Pelican Bay’s SHU. He alleges 

that the layouts of SHUs in other facilities are quieter, so inmates do 

not hear as many pod doors opening and closing, the metal pipes 

hitting the metal discs on as many cells, officers who must use metal 

staircases within the pods, and the same degree of reverberation with 

the cell walls. While the officers may have made extra noise by 

rushing to complete the checks, the officers were undoubtedly and 

unavoidably going to make noise simply by complying with the 

court-mandated use of the Guard One system within the SHU at 

Pelican Bay. Pelican Bay’s circular layout required the floor officers 

to travel up and down the metal stairs to check the inmates confined 

on the lower and upper levels of the pods. Assuming perfect 

implementation of the system, inmates were still susceptible to being 

awoken every hour each night when heavy entry doors to the pods 

opened and closed.

Id. at 1301–02. Thus, the findings and recommendations appropriately considered the specific 

facts of Rico in assessing whether the holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified 

immunity in that case applies to this case, such that Defendants Holland and Gutierrez are 

similarly entitled to qualified immunity. Notably, the findings and recommendations discuss the 

lack of evidence regarding California Correctional Institution (“CCI”)’s design, including no 

evidence that CCI’s SHU (where Plaintiff was housed) “is designed in a way that would result in 

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 162 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

4

excessive noise if officers were not using Guard One by banging on the cell doors.” (Doc. No. 

153 at 21.) In addition, Plaintiff does not allege that noise inherent in the design of CCI 

contributed to his sleep deprivation. (Id.) Rather, according to Plaintiff, the excessive noise was 

caused by guards banging the metal pipe extra hard on their cell doors, especially if inmates 

complained about the noise, and guards used these noisy checks as “a torture weapon to get the 

inmates to complain so as to get the checks to stop” because the guards did not want to use the 

Guard One system. (Id.) These factual differences serve to distinguish this case from Rico, and 

the undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis of the applicability of that decision.

Defendants also argue that the magistrate judge erred in finding genuine disputes of 

material fact exist regarding whether Defendants acted with deliberate indifference because “there 

are no facts in dispute that the inmate grievances at CCI were investigated and conducted 

according to policy and that the Guard One complaints were not substantiated.” (Doc. No. 155 at 

10.) The undersigned is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument, however, because as the

magistrate judge correctly noted, the evidence before the court on summary judgment does not 

support Defendants’ broad proposition that the Guard One complaints were investigated and not 

substantiated. (Doc. No. 153 at 29.) In particular, the undisputed facts merely showed that 

Defendants “had visited the SHU on some occasions when Guard One was being used, and that 

Defendants were told, possibly only once, by a supervisor that floor officers were using Guard 

One appropriately.” (Id.) Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, this evidence is not sufficient to 

show that the Guard One complaints were investigated and were not substantiated, especially 

when considering that at least 100 individual inmates complained about sleep deprivation due to 

the use of the Guard One welfare check system at CCI. (Id. at 13, n.8.) Thus, the magistrate judge 

did not err in concluding that disputes of material fact exist regarding the severity of the sounds 

generated by the use of Guard One at CCI and whether Defendants’ response to inmate 

complaints about that noise demonstrated deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm to 

inmate safety.

In sum, Defendants’ objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings 

and recommendations.

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 162 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including Defendants’ objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 29, 2024 (Doc. No. 153) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 147) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 162 Filed 12/05/24 Page 5 of 5