Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02583/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02583-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Defendants McGrath and Vogt have not been served. Plaintiff received notice of this

from the returns of service and the notation to that effect in the motion for summary judgment

filed by the other defendants. McGrath and Vogt will be dismissed for failure to obtain service.

See Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m). The word “defendants” refers to only the moving defendants when

used hereafter.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST KELLY HOLESTINE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOE McGRATH; RICHARD KIRKLAND,

P. DILLARD, D. R. SMITH, M. J.

NIMROD, C. PATTON, D. A.

CARMICHAEL, R. TAYLOR, J. VOGT,

J. ANDERSON, K. RAMOS AND R.

WILTSE,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-2583 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff alleges that prison

officials were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. He seeks only monetary damages, having deleted his injunctive relief claim

in response to a motion to dismiss. All defendants except McGrath and Vogt, who have not

been served, have moved for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff has opposed the motion and

moved to strike defendants’ declarations in support of their motion, and defendants have

filed a reply. The motion for summary judgment will be granted. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was assigned to cell B1-102 in the Psychiatric Services Unit (“PSU”), a

Secured Housing Unit (“SHU”), of Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) on November 30,

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2003. He alleges that while housed in cell B1-102, he was subjected to harm because of a

defective plumbing system which allowed waste water and sewage flushed from the toilet in

the cell next to him to pass through the drain and surge up into his toilet bowl. This

plumbing defect is referred to by the parties as a “backflush.” Plaintiff also alleges that he

was forced to clean his cell and the toilet, under threat of discipline, with his bare hands

and one of two shower towels allotted him, and was denied supplies needed to disinfect his

toilet bowl so as to protect himself from serious disease. He alleges that as a result of the

actions of defendants he contracted at least two bacterial infections, and was unreasonably

exposed to the hepatitis A virus. He asks for compensatory, nominal and punitive

damages.

There are several defendants, all presently or formerly employed at PBSP: The

former Warden (Joe McGrath); the Chief Deputy Warden (Richard Kirkland); two Associate

Wardens (P. Dillard and D.R. Smith); a Correctional Counselor (M.J. Nimrod); a

Correctional Captain (C. Patten); a Correctional Lieutenant (D.A. Carmichael); two

Correctional Sergeants (R. Taylor and J. Vogt); and three Correctional Officers (J.

Anderson, K. Ramos and R. Wiltse).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

In support of their motion for summary judgment defendants submitted the

declaration of Dayton Conover, the Correctional Plant Manager and an Associate Warden

at PBSP, he which he described defendants’ efforts to remediate the backflush problem at

PBSP by 1) requesting funds to make repairs to the plumbing system, and 2) sending

plumbers to reduce the water pressure in the toilets, which ameliorated the problem to

some degree. Defendants also submitted the declaration of Mike Smelosky, Warden of

Health Care Operations at Pelican Bay State Prison, who explained that the reason for

denying plaintiff access to cleaning tools (mops and toilet brushes) is that such tools can be

modified for use as dangerous weapons. Additionally, defendants’ attorney, by declaration,

provided a copy of the transcript of a deposition of the plaintiff, taken on December 4, 2006,

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and certain records of prison authorities, authenticated by the custodian of the records from

Mule Creek State Prison, where plaintiff is currently housed.

Plaintiff moved to strike the declarations filed by defendants, claiming that they

contained statements not based on personal knowledge. Plaintiff also challenged the

authenticity of the deposition transcript because corrections requested by him were not

made and because the reporter’s certificate was unsigned. In response, defendants have

filed a signed certified copy of the deposition transcript which includes an appended copy of

plaintiff’s requested corrections to the transcript.

In a ruling issued May 14, 2007, the court determined that plaintiff’s contentions

went only to portions of each declaration and would be considered in conjunction with the

motion for summary judgment. Defendants have remedied the problem with the deposition

transcript, and the court will consider only those portions of the declarations which are in

proper form. The motion to strike is DENIED.

II. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show

that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may

affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury

to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Nissan

Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When the moving

party has met this burden of production, the nonmoving party must go beyond the

pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins. Id.

B. Relevant Law

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit

inhumane ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner

receives in prison and the conditions under which the prisoner is confined are subject to

scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). The

Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials, who must provide all prisoners with

the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and

personal safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; see also Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246

(9th Cir. 1982). 

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1)

the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the prison official

possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v.

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-98 (1991)). The necessary state of mind in prison condition

cases is deliberate indifference, which is equivalent to the standard for criminal

recklessness, i.e., the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or

safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. 

C. Discussion 

Defendants contends that they are entitled to summary judgment because there is

no genuine issue of material fact regarding their contention that the backflush problem and

the cleaning supply policy at PBSP do not amount to an objectively serious risk to plaintiff’s

health and safety, and that there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff did not

suffer any physical injury as a result of the backflush problem. 

1. The Evidence

Defendants’ motion is supported by the declarations described above in the section

addressing the motion to strike. Plaintiff’s opposition is supported by the following items.

Plaintiff provides a work order report which he describes as showing “at least over

300 work orders completed by the institution plumbers related to the toilet backflushing all

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 4 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

over the Pelican Bay prison complex.” Pl.’s Exhibits in Supp. of Opp. to Mot. Summ. J., ex.

C. He has also filed an affidavit of a fellow inmate stating that similar problems at Ironwood

State Prison in Blythe, California, were fixed several years ago after civil litigation, Heartsill

Decl. at 2, and an exhibit which he says indicates the cost of repairs at Ironwood was

$527,000, Pl.’s Exhibits in Supp. of Opp. to Mot. Summ. J., ex. D. 

Plaintiff challenges defendants’ declaration that the water at Pelican Bay contains a

disinfectant residual, and offers evidence purporting to show that if the water does contain

that particular disinfectant, its effectiveness depends on the concentration of the

disinfectant, its contact time, the turbidity of the water, and the water temperature. Id. at

ex. E (printout from site of Government of South Africa). Similar evidence is offered to

show that a causal connection can be established between human fecal contamination of

drinking water and an outbreak of infectious disease, even in chlorine treated drinking

water, id. at ex. F (article from newsletter of the Cooperative Research Centers of the

Australian government), and that hepatitis A can be spread from the stool of one person to

the mouth of another, id. at ex. G (Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home Edition). 

Plaintiff offers the following medical records which he contends demonstrate his

injuries: Exhibit J is an outpatient report showing that in January of 2001 his prostate was

swollen and tender, and that he had cramps, nausea and vomiting, which may have been

the result of food poisoning; the report indicates he was examined for pain in the lower left

quadrant. Lab tests showed certain prostate specific antigens were found “out of range”

and that he was referred to urology for evaluation in February of 2001, that the referring

physician found from family history that the patient had a risk of prostate carcinoma, and

that a urinalysis showed mucus was “Out of Range: Moderate.” Exhibit N is an April, 2001,

clinic report relating that plaintiff has suffered from “extensive” psoriasis and “continues to

have some involvement of his scalp, face, ears, and elbows,” but “denies any involvement

of his genital skin or his joints or nails at the current time.” 

An April 2004 report indicates he was suffering pain in his liver and was referred to

the Hepatitis C Committee, and was still suffering pain in July and August of 2004. Id. at

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 5 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

ex. K. That exhibit also contains physician’s orders in December of 2004 for medication for

his scalp and “affected areas,” apparently associated with the psoriasis which he alleges

was affected by the unsanitary prison conditions. Exhibit L is a Hepatitis Committee Patient

Profile finding in 2003 that plaintiff “does not meet criteria” and an April, 2004, lab test

showing HCV RNA, Quant, BDNA was “Out of Range”. 

Exhibit M contains the results of abdominal sonograms in 1998 and 2006 showing

no significant abnormality of the abdomen except for an enlarged spleen. 

2. Analysis

There is no dispute as to the nature of the backflush problem, or that it persisted

from November 30, 2003, the date that plaintiff was assigned to cell B1-102, until plaintiff

was moved out of that cell in August 2004. In his declaration, Dayton Conover,

Correctional Plant Manager at PBSP, attests that there was a defect in the design of the

plumbing when the prison was opened in 1990, and that the plumbing defect has not been

corrected. Conover states “all the inmate cell toilets were connected to half baffle fittings”

which “are not tall enough to prevent wastewater flushed from one cell toilet from flowing

back into the toilet of the adjacent cell.” Conover Decl. at 2. According to Conover, “[t]he

half baffles fittings have not always performed satisfactory [sic] at Pelican Bay. As a result,

the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations revised the Design Criteria Guidelines to

require a taller baffle in the fitting ... [and] [i]n January 2004, I officially requested funds to

repair this problem. ... The project was approved pending funding in March 2004 ... . 

Currently, the toilet backflush repair project at Pelican Bay has been approved but not yet

funded.” Id. at 3. 

It is also undisputed that plaintiff was not allowed gloves, brushes or mops with

which to clean the toilet without coming in contact with it. According to the Associate

Warden of Health Care Operations at Pelican Bay, whose declaration was submitted by the

defendants, Pelican Bay Operation Procedure No. 222 (“O.P. 222") “authorizes 1 spoonful

of cleanser to be issued on a wet rag or paper towel once a week. Cleaning devices such

as rubber gloves, mops, toilet brushes, have proven over the years to be a security risks

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 6 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 It is interesting to note, however, that according to the declarations of two other

inmates the prison does issue a wooden scrub brush with a five-foot wooden handle, liquid

disinfectant and latex gloves to inmates to clean section showers. Decl. Nelson at 3; Decl.

Rankine at 2.

7

[sic] since they can easily modified [sic] into weapons. As such, O.P. 222 does not allow

these cleaning devices to be given to the inmates.” Smelosky Decl. at 2.2

Although the above facts are undisputed, the parties do dispute whether the

backflushing problem was, objectively, sufficiently serious to meet the first prong of an

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

Defendants claim the backflushing was not serious because “the wastewater and

materials that would show up in his toilet when his neighbor flushed, would never overflow

out of his toilet bowl,” a fact plaintiff admitted, McDonough Decl., ex. A (plaintiff’s

deposition) (hereafter “Holestine dep.”) at 69, and because flushing the toilet a “couple of

times” would cause the wastewater to go down the drain,” Conover Decl. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff

states, however, that he and his neighbor flushed the toilet bowl contents back and forth

five or six times before the contents eventually went down the drain, and that there were

times when he was not in his cell to flush the toilet, so the contents remained in the toilet

and made the cell stink. Holestine dep. at 69. 

Defendants claim that the dispatch of a plumber to reduce the water pressure in

cells B1-102 and B1-103 (the neighboring cell) provided a temporary resolution to the backflushing problem. At deposition, however, plaintiff testified that although lowering the water

pressure “helped a little bit,” it did not fix the problem, Holestine dep. at 73, and the

defendants’ evidence is only that lowering the water pressure “will reduce the overflow of

wastewater into the adjacent cell toilet,” Conover Decl. at 3, not eliminate the backflush. 

Defendants claim that even if plaintiff is correct that the remediation efforts it has

undertaken are ineffective, there is no risk to plaintiff’s health because the water used in the

toilets contains a disinfectant, liquid chlorine. The Correctional Plant Manger, who is in

charge of maintenance and repair of the prison infrastructure, states that “[t]he water used

to flush all the toilets at Pelican Bay is potable water. In California, all potable water must

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 7 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

contain a disinfectant residual throughout the entire water system. The disinfectant used

by the Crescent City Water Department is sodium hypochloride, also known as liquid

chlorine.” Conover Decl. at 4. 

For purposes of deciding whether the situation was objectively sufficiently serious

the court will treat plaintiff’s version of disputed facts as true. Even so, the evidence is that

the problem was ameliorated somewhat by turning down the water pressure, that flushing

the toilet a number of times would clear it, and that the toilets used treated water. And as

defendants point out, the situation was no different from that of an inmate in a two-person

cell who had to clean a toilet that had been used by his cellmate. For these reasons it

would appear that the situation was not objectively sufficiently serious to constitute an

Eighth Amendment violation, but also bearing on this point are plaintiff’s claims regarding

his own injuries – that is, if he can show that the backflush problem caused him injury, that

would bear on whether the backflush problem was objectively sufficiently serious. 

Plaintiff has alleged that he contracted at least two serious bacterial infections from

his cell toilet. The first was in January of 2001, when he became very ill and was bedridden

for over ten days suffering severe stomach cramps, fever, diarrhea and blood in his stools. 

Opp. to Mot. Summ. J., pl.’s decl. of disputed facts at 20, ¶ 64. This was, however, before

plaintiff was placed in cell B1-102, and, therefore, could not have been proximately caused

by the backflushing problem. 

The second illness was in April of 2004 when he experienced symptoms which were

consistent with gastroenteritis. Id. at 21, ¶ ¶ 68-69. Gastroenteritis can be caused by

bacterial, viral and/or parasitic infections that are commonly spread by drinking water

contaminated with the feces of another person, he says, referencing his exhibit G at 514, a

Merck Manual of Medical Information. Pl.’s Exhibits in Supp. of Opp. to Mot. Summ. J., Ex.

G at 514. Plaintiff states he was sick for ten days, but the doctor did nothing for him. 

Plaintiff’s exhibit K, “Interdisciplinary Progress Notes” dated April 20 and 21, 2004, indicate

plaintiff asked to be examined because of pain in his liver, and that on April 21 he was

referred to the Hepatitis C Committee to determine if he needed an abdominal ultrasound

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 8 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

or GI consult, and Motrin was prescribed. Id. at ex. K. The notes also indicate that his lab

results, included as exhibit L, were examined on April 20. Id. Exhibit L shows regular

reports on blood tests, including viral, enzyme, and hormone levels associated with

Hepatitis, beginning in 1998 and ending on April 7, 2004. No additional medical reports

have been provided by either party related to the April 2004 incident. 

Defendants point out that plaintiff conceded at his deposition that he does not know

what kind of illness he had. McDonough Decl., Ex. A at 94. Plaintiff says he “know[s] that

there’s many of – a whole variety – a whole slough of diseases that you could catch from

exposure to human waste or even a sewage that is festering in the drain. So I knew there

is all kinds of stuff I could have caught.” Id. at 97. But there is no evidence that he did

catch any of them from the toilet. Plaintiff’s evidence indicates that disease may be

transmitted through chlorinated drinking water tainted with fecal matter. There is no

evidence, however, that he ingested any water tainted with fecal matter; in fact, plaintiff

does not make this claim. And, according to plaintiff’s deposition testimony, he was always 

very careful not to allow water to splash his rectum when he used the toilet because he

believed that was the cause of his 2001 illness. Id. At 95. He himself attributes his liver

pain to stress and Hepatitis C. Id. at 97.

Plaintiff asks the court to infer from this testimony, the general publications about the

transmission of diseases, and the Interdisciplinary Progress Notes that his abdominal pain

was caused by being forced to clean out his toilet. That is simply not a fair inference from

the evidence he has presented, so the court will not make it. 

Plaintiff also alleges that his psoriasis was aggravated by his exposure to fecalcontaminated water in the toilet bowl. No evidence has been presented to support this

contention. A letter from an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Dermatology

of the University of California-Davis, dated April 26, 2001, states that plaintiff has

experienced extensive psoriasis. Pl.’s Exhibits in Supp. of Opp. to Mot. Summ. J., ex. N at

1. The letter predates the matter at issue here, and indicates that in 2001, the psoriasis

was limited to plaintiff’s scalp, face, ears and elbows, and that plaintiff denied any

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 9 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

involvement of his genital skin or his joints or nails. Id.

The only other evidence of injury offered by the plaintiff is the results of two

abdominal sonograms, one in 1998 indicating no significant abnormality and one in 2006

indicating his spleen is “enlarged.” Id. at ex. M. Plaintiff asks the court to infer that

because “many diseases cause the spleen to enlarge (including hepatitis)” and his is

enlarged, the backflushing caused his enlarged spleen. Opp’n to Mot. Summ. J. at 22, ¶ ¶

74-75. He admits, however, that he does not know what caused his enlarged spleen, and

he stated during his deposition that he plans “to investigate whether it was due to the

prostate infection, the whatever other infection I had in April of 2004, combined with the

Hepatitis and the stress of dealing with these conditions for almost two years.” Holestine

dep. at 93. He conceded, however, that the prostate infection was not caused by the

blackflushing problem. Id. No reasonable juror could find, based on this evidence, that the

backflushing problem caused his enlarged spleen.

Plaintiff having failed to provide any evidence that he suffered an illness caused by

the backflushing problem, his bare allegations of injury cannot generate a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the situation was “sufficiently serious” to rise to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation. Although the Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and

unusual punishment, this does not mean that federal courts can or should interfere

whenever prisoners are merely inconvenienced or suffer de minimis or no injury. Although

the court is sympathetic to what must have been an unpleasant and extremely annoying

condition, in the absence of injury proximately caused the condition, it was not sufficiently

serious to amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10 (8th

Amendment excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of force). The motion

for summary judgment is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

The claims against defendants McGrath and Vogt are DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to obtain service. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m). Plaintiff’s motion to strike (document

number 40 on the docket) is DENIED.

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 10 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

11

For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment (document

number 32 on the docket) is GRANTED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.04\HOLESTINE583.MSJ.wpd 

Case 4:04-cv-02583-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 11 of 11