Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-CV-00293-LJO-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(DOC. 9)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN

TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Findings And Recommendations

I. Background

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this

action by filing his complaint on February 18, 2011. Doc. 1. On September 20, 2011, the Court

screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Doc. 8. 

Plaintiff stated claims against certain Defendants. Plaintiff was provided the opportunity to

either file a first amended complaint or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the

claims found to be cognizable. On September 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed his first amended

complaint. Doc. 9.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

1

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly,

550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary Of First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

(“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff names as Defendants: Kathleen Allison, acting

warden of CSATF; Kent Clark, former warden of CSATF; D. Foston, chief of the inmate appeals

branch; D. Artis, appeals examiner in the appeals branch; A. Hernandez, associate warden at

SATF; T. Wan, S. Sherman, and R. Diaz, chief deputy wardens at CSATF; F. Vasquez, C facility

captain at CSATF; R. Tolsen and B. Peterson, captains at CSATF; D. Goss, C. Moreno, and O.

Ybarra, lieutenants; M. Bejarano and C. Garza, sergeants at CSATF; R. Gomez, appeals

coordinator at CSATF; Matthew Cate, secretary of CDCR; Scott Kernan, undersecretary of

CDCR; and Teri McDonald, chief deputy secretary for adult operations of CDCR.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff requests declaratory relief, compensatory and

punitive damages, appointment of counsel, every Defendant found to have violated Plaintiff’s

rights to be fired, and costs of suit.

///

///

2

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

A. Eighth Amendment - Conditions of Confinement

1. Allegations

On June 21, 2009, C facility was placed on lockdown because of a riot between southern

and northern Hispanics. First Am. Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff is classified as southern Hispanic

because he is Mexican and living in Los Angeles at the time of his conviction. Id. On June 26,

2009, Defendant F. Vasquez prepared a program status report (“PSR”), placing the entire C

facility on modified program pending completion of facility search and inmate interviews. Id. ¶

6. On or about June 26,2009, this PSR was approved by Defendants Allison and Clark. Id. ¶ 7. 

Southern and northern Hispanics allegedly involved in the riot were placed in administrative

segregation unit (“ASU”), and seven to ten days later, Defendants Clark and Allison permitted

the segregated southern and northern Hispanic inmates to receive 10 hours a week of exercise. 

Id. ¶ 8.

Modified program entailed unclothed body search prior to exiting the cell and a metal

detector wand. Id. ¶ 9. All escorts are in restraints, handcuffs, and/or waist chains, and no visits,

canteen, packages, work/education assignments, out-of-cell religious services, no access to the

law library (except for “verified” court filing deadlines), three five-minute showers a week, and

no out-of-cell exercise and sunshine caused by Defendants’ refusal to utilize the concrete yards. 

Id. After one week, inmates placed in ASU were allowed more than 10 hours a week of outdoor

exercise, while southern and northern Hispanic inmates who remained in C facility, including

Plaintiff, were deprived of out-of-cell exercise and sunshine because of the modified programs. 

Id. ¶ 10.

From June 26, 2009 to October 13, 2010, when Plaintiff was transferred, Defendants

Vasquez, T. Wan, C. Moreno, R. Tolsen, B. Peterson, and Does 1 through 5 prepared PSRs

denying Plaintiff and southern and northern Hispanics access to the concrete yards. Id. ¶ 11. 

Defendants Clark, Allison, Wan, R. Diaz, S. Sherman, and Does 6 through 10 approved these

PSRs. Id. As a result of these PSRs, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of out-of-cell exercise and

sunshine for 16 months. Id. Defendants failed to prevent physical and psychological suffering to

Plaintiff. Id.

3

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

PSR parts A and C are confidential. Id. ¶ 12A. Part A includes the area affected by the

modified program, inmates affected (the race/ethnicity), the reason for the modified program, and

an estimated return date to normal program. Id. Defendants preparing the weekly PSRs are to

notify Defendants S. Kernan and T. McDonald whether CSATF was providing Plaintiff and other

modified program inmates with access to the concrete yards. Id.

Defendant S. Kernan is responsible for the operation of all prison facilities, and reviews

and approves decisions by individual prisons to impose and maintain lockdowns. Id. ¶12B. 

Defendant T. McDonald is responsible for the operation of all prison facilities. Id. ¶ 12C,

Defendant M. Cate is responsible for the operation of all prison facilities, including lockdown

policies. Id. ¶ 12D.

In July 2009, Defendant correctional officers completed facility searches and inmate

interviews relating to the riot. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff filed a group 602 grievance, complaining of the

deprivation of out-of-cell exercise at the concrete yards, and requesting 1.5 hours a day until a

return to normal program. Id. On August 8, 2009, Defendant C. Garza denied the grievance,

finding that it would triple the length of the modified program if the prison officials deviated

from the PSR, and cause tension and unrest. Id. ¶ 13A. Plaintiff appealed his grievance to the

first level of review on August 12, 2009. Id. ¶ 14. On August 23, 2009, Defendant D. Goss

conducted the formal level interview. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff contended that Pelican Bay State Prison

and California State Prison - Sacramento provided their prisoners access to the concrete yards

during modified programs. Id.

On August 23, 2009, Defendants Goss and Wan denied Plaintiff’s grievance, finding that

there was not enough staff in C facility to monitor inmates in the concrete yard and still keep the

current modified program. Id. ¶ 16. On September 9, 2009, Plaintiff appealed his grievance to

the second level of review. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff contends that lack of prison resources is not

adequate reason to deny Plaintiff out-of-cell exercise via access to the concrete yard. Id.

Plaintiff contends that there are typically two correctional officers assigned to the control booth

towers which are more than sufficient to monitor a group of inmates in the concrete yard. Id. ¶

17A. Plaintiff contends that during third watch, only one correctional officer is assigned to the

4

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

control booth, and the correctional officer is able to run the showers, dayroom activities,

telephone calls, haircuts, nine porters in three sections, and open and close all cell doors. Id. ¶

17B. 

On October 6, 2009, Defendant Allison denied Plaintiff’s grievance at the second level of

review. Id. ¶ 18. Defendant found that white, black, and Hispanic inmates in facility C were not

approved for recreational activities because of the modified program, and that CSATF would not

promote segregation of inmates in the concrete exercise yards. Id. On October 15, 2009,

Plaintiff appealed his grievance to the Director’s level of review, contending that no racial

segregation was necessary, and that white and black inmates could access the concrete yards with

Hispanic inmates. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff also contends that concerns of segregation were not evident

when southern Hispanic, northern Hispanic, white, and black inmates were segregated by race for

medical escorts, law library access, and facility block searches. Id.

On April 1, 2010, Defendant D. Artis denied Plaintiff’s grievance at the Director’s level

of review, relying on information that C facility northern and southern Hispanics continued to

engage in violence, thus requiring the continued modified program. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff

contends that the violence occurred as a result of setups by prison officials for allowing northern

and southern Hispanics to interact with each other. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Plaintiff alleges that he

suffered muscle cramps, stress, migraine headaches, constipation, back pain, photophobia,

lethargy, revenge fantasies, and thoughts of suicide as a result of the deprivation of exercise. Id.

¶ 27. 

2. Analysis

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.

2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and

only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are

sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian,

503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). In order to state a claim for violation of

the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that officials

5

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to him. E.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Mere negligence on

the part of the official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the official’s conduct must

have been wanton. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835; Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128. “Deprivation of outdoor

exercise violates the Eighth Amendment rights of inmates confined to continuous and long-term

segregation.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Spain v. Procunier, 600

F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979)), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998).

At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief against Defendants

Vasquez, T. Wan, C. Moreno, R. Tolsen, B. Peterson, Clark, Allison, R. Diaz, S. Sherman, and

Does 1 through 10 for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment for

deprivation of outdoor exercise.

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants McDonald, Kernan, and Cate. Plaintiff

fails to allege any facts which demonstrate that any of these supervisory officials knew of and

disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health. Under § 1983, Plaintiff must

demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v.

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). The term “supervisory liability,” loosely and

commonly used by both courts and litigants alike, is a misnomer. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. 

“Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their

subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” Id. at 1948. Rather, each government

official, regardless of his or her title, is only liable for his or her own misconduct, and therefore,

Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant, through his or her own individual actions,

violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 1948-49. Plaintiff’s allegations against

Defendants McDonald, Kernan, and Cate amount at most to respondeat superior liability, which

is not cognizable under § 1983.

B. Equal Protection

1. Allegations

Between June 26, 2009, through October 2010, Defendants Vasquez, Moreno, Tolsen,

Peterson, Clark, Allison, Diaz, Sherman, and Does 1 through 10 prepared and approved PSRs

6

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

that subjected Plaintiff to severe restrictions based solely on Plaintiff’s race as a southern

Hispanic. First Am. Compl. ¶ 29. Defendants Cate, Kernan, and McDonald were responsible for

the operation of all prison facilities, including lockdown and modified program policies and

practices. Id. ¶ 31. It is CDCR’s policy that any incident involving race, all inmates of that race

are locked up. Id. CSATF Defendants enforced Defendants Cate, Kernan, and McDonald’s

racially discriminatory policies. Id. ¶ 31A. Plaintiff was not involved in the riot on June 21,

2009, or any subsequent incidents between northern and southern Hispanics. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff

complains that no individualized review was done to determine whether an inmate was an actual

threat to the safety and security of the prison. Id. ¶ 33. On May 2010, prison officials at SATF

removed all the northern Hispanics inmates from the lower yard (blocks 1-4) and placed them all

on the upper yard in blocks 6 and 8. Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff thus contends that continuing the

modified program for lower yard, where Plaintiff was housed, was not rational because no

northern Hispanics were housed there. Id.

On June 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a group 602 inmate grievance, complaining that he was

on modified program because of race and not disruptive behavior, and requesting reinstatement

of previous privileges. Id. ¶ 35. On July 22, 2010, Defendants Moreno and A. Hernandez denied

Plaintiff’s grievance, finding that until a determination can be made that northern and southern

Hispanic inmates can program safely, the modified program will continue. Id. ¶ 37. On August

8, 2010, Plaintiff appealed to the second level of review, contending that there was no safety and

security concerns remaining to justify the continued modified program, and that prison officials

were merely further punishing the inmates. Id. ¶ 38. On August 31, 2010, Defendants Gomez

and Allison denied Plaintiff’s grievance, citing to other incidents that occurred after the June 21,

2009 riot as justification for the continued modified program. Id. ¶ 39. On September 26, 2010,

Plaintiff appealed his grievance to the Director’s level of review. Id. ¶ 43.

On October 13, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred to Centinela State Prison. Id. ¶ 44. On

December 28, 2010, Defendants Artis and non-Defendant M. Hodges, on behalf of Defendant

Foston, issued their response, denying Plaintiff’s grievance on the grounds provided by

Defendants Allison and Gomez. Id. ¶ 45.

7

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

2. Analysis

The Equal Protection Clause . . . is essentially a direction that all persons similarly

situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432,

439 (1985) (citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). An equal protection claim may be

established by showing that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based

on the plaintiff’s me mbership in a protected class, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th

Cir. 2003), or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a

rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562,

564 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica

LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008). A plaintiff must allege sufficient

facts either showing intentional unlawful discrimination or “that are at least susceptible of an

inference of discriminatory intent.” Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 565 F.3d 1205,

1212 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50.

At the pleading stage, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for relief against Defendants

Vasquez, Moreno, Tolsen, Peterson, Clark, Allison, Diaz, Sherman, A. Hernandez, Gomez, and

Does 1 through 10 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Artis and Foston. Plaintiff had been

transferred to another prison by the time he received the Director’s level review. Thus, Plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate that Defendants Artis and Foston caused a violation of Plaintiff’s rights

under the Equal Protection Clause. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 749, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants McDonald, Kernan, and Cate. Plaintiff alleges

at most respondeat superior liability, which is not cognizable under § 1983.1

IV. Conclusion And Recommendation

Plaintiff states the following cognizable claims: 1) Defendants Vasquez, T. Wan, C.

Moreno, R. Tolsen, B. Peterson, Clark, Allison, R. Diaz, S. Sherman, and Does 1 through 10 for

 Plaintiff names Defendants O. Ybarra, M. Bejerano, and D. Goss, However, Plaintiff 1

fails to link any of these Defendants to an act or omission that violated Plaintiff’s constitutional

or federal rights. Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743. Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim against them.

8

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 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

27

28

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment for deprivation of exercise; and 2)

Vasquez, Moreno, Tolsen, Peterson, Clark, Allison, Diaz, Sherman, A. Hernandez, Gomez, and

Does 1 through 10 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants O. Ybarra, M. Bejerano, D. Goss, Cate, Kernan,

McDonald, Artis, and Foston.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed against 1) Defendants Vasquez, T. Wan, C. Moreno, R.

Tolsen, B. Peterson, Clark, Allison, R. Diaz, S. Sherman, and Does 1 through 10

for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment for deprivation

of exercise and 2) Vasquez, Moreno, Tolsen, Peterson, Clark, Allison, Diaz,

Sherman, A. Hernandez, Gomez, and Does 1 through 10 for violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

2. Defendants O. Ybarra, M. Bejerano, D. Goss, Cate, Kernan, McDonald, Artis, and

Foston be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim.

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-one

(21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file

written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge's 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. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 11, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/11/12 Page 9 of 9