Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00366/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00366-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARVESTER J. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. RECORDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-00366-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 33

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Larvester Johnson alleges in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit that his jailors at Maguire 

Correctional Facility violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in administrative 

segregation without due process. Defendants Rachel Recoder, a Sheriff’s Correctional Officer, 

and Julie Costa, a Sheriff’s Sergeant, move for summary judgment and have presented supporting 

evidence. The motion is unopposed. Johnson has not filed an opposition and never asked to 

extend the filing deadline. Because the undisputed material facts show that Johnson’s placement 

in administrative segregation was constitutional, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED.

Case 3:18-cv-00366-WHO Document 38 Filed 04/08/20 Page 1 of 7
2

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

I. Background

The following factual allegations are undisputed, unless specifically noted otherwise. On 

July 11, 2017, Johnson was a pretrial detainee at Maguire Correctional Facility. On that day 

Johnson was upset because Recoder identified his stamps and envelopes as contraband and admits 

that he became confrontational with Recoder. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 3 at 3-4.) As Recoder and 

her partner conducted an inspection of Johnson’s housing unit, Johnson began yelling obscenities 

at them through his door. (Mot. for Summ. J. (MSJ), Costa Decl., Dkt. No. 33-2 at 15-16.) 

A dispute between Johnson and the other inmates in the housing unit broke out. (Id.) The 

other inmates began yelling back at Johnson, calling him derogatory names and demanding that he 

be removed from the housing unit. (Id.) Johnson responded by threatening to fight the other

inmates. (Id.) Facility staff escorted Johnson from the housing unit and placed him in a holding 

cell. (Id.) Recoder reported the disruption to the Classification Unit but did not accompany 

Johnson to the holding cell. (MSJ, Recoder Decl., Dkt. No. 33-3 at 2.) Recoder had no authority 

place Johnson in administrative segregation; her authority was limited to reporting him to the 

Classification Unit. (Id.) 

Once placed in the holding cell, Johnson flooded the cell and threw wads of toilet paper 

onto the windows. (MSJ, Costa Decl., Dkt. No. 33-2 at 11.) He was then placed on administrative 

segregation status and moved to the administrative segregation housing unit. (Id.) Later that 

evening, Johnson received a disciplinary write-up for violation of jail rules, resulting in the loss of 

two weeks of commissary privileges. (Id. at 15-16.) 

II. Standard of Review

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

is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 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. 

Case 3:18-cv-00366-WHO Document 38 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 7
3

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

Northern District of California

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

dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp.v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 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 show a genuine dispute of 

material fact, the moving party wins. Id. 

The court is concerned only with disputes over material facts and “[f]actual disputes that 

are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of 

the court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 

1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of identifying, with reasonable 

particularity, the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to 

make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 

U.S. at 323 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

III. Claims 

Recoder moves for summary judgment on the grounds that she could not have placed 

Johnson in administrative segregation because she lacks any such authority. Costa moves for 

summary judgment because she placed Johnson in administrative segregation to maintain order, 

safety and security. Because the placement was not for disciplinary reasons, Johnson was not 

entitled to a formal hearing procedure. Additionally, both defendants claim qualified immunity.

Johnson failed to oppose the motion for summary judgment.1 That does not end the matter 

because a district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment solely because the 

opposing party has failed to file an opposition. See Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494-95 & 

 

1

 A verified complaint may be used as an opposing affidavit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, as long as it 

is based on personal knowledge and sets forth specific facts admissible in evidence. See 

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 & nn. 10-11 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Johnson’s amended 

complaint, which is the operative pleading, was not signed under penalty of perjury and is not 

evidence; I will not consider it in this order. Johnson’s original complaint, however, was signed 

under penalty of perjury and therefore is considered as evidence for purposes of deciding the 

motion. 

Case 3:18-cv-00366-WHO Document 38 Filed 04/08/20 Page 3 of 7
4

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

Northern District of California

n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (an unopposed motion may be granted only after the court determines that 

there are no material issues of fact). This is so even if the failure to oppose violates a local rule. 

See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may, however, grant 

an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s papers are themselves sufficient to 

support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. See United 

States v. Real Property at Incline Village, 47 F.3d 1511, 1520 (9th Cir. 1995) (local rule cannot 

mandate automatic entry of judgment for moving party without consideration of whether motion 

and supporting papers satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 56), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Degen v. 

United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 

1993) (same).

A. Recoder

The undisputed evidence shows that Recoder called the Classification Unit to report 

Johnson’s behavior and recommended to correctional officer Carlos Oropeza that Johnson be 

removed from his housing unit to maintain order and safety. (MSJ, Recoder Decl., Dkt. No. 33-3 

at 2.) She did not place him in administrative segregation; she lacked the authority to do so. (Id.) 

Accordingly, Recoder is entitled to summary judgment in her favor. 

B. Costa

Johnson claims that he was denied due process because he was placed in administrative 

segregation without receiving written notice of the charges against him and an adversarial hearing. 

A court presented with a procedural due process claim by a pretrial detainee should first 

ask if the alleged deprivation amounts to punishment and therefore implicates the Due Process 

Clause itself; if so, the court then must determine what process is due. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 

U.S. 520, 535-38 (1979). Disciplinary segregation as punishment for violation of jail rules and 

regulations cannot be imposed without due process. See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 523-26 

(9th Cir. 1996). Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention facility 

officials, that determination generally will turn on “whether an alternative purpose to which [the 

restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable [to it].” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 

U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963). Thus, if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is 

Case 3:18-cv-00366-WHO Document 38 Filed 04/08/20 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to 

“punishment.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539. In addressing a § 1983 claim brought by a pretrial detainee, 

“courts must defer to the judgment of correction officials unless the record contains substantial 

evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail 

security.” Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 322-23

(2012). 

Johnson’s allegation that he was placed in administrative segregation without receiving 

written notice of the charges against him and an adversarial hearing does not make out a 

procedural due process claim against Costa. The undisputed evidence shows that Costa approved 

Johnson’s placement in administrative segregation to maintain jail order and security, not as 

punishment. (MSJ, Costa Decl., Dkt. No. 33-2 at 2.) If Johnson had not threatened other inmates, 

he could have been placed in a different general population housing unit rather than in 

administrative segregation. (Id.) An administrative segregation report was filled out giving the 

reasons for Johnson’s placement; it is jail policy that an inmate be given a copy of his report. (Id. 

at 6; Oropeza Decl., Dkt. No. 33-1 at 2.) Johnson could also have expressed his views on the 

matter through the jail grievance procedure, as he did concerning the identification of his stamps 

and envelopes as contraband. (MSJ, Costa Decl., Dkt. No. 33-2 at 8.) Additionally, Costa was

responsible only for Johnson’s initial placement in administrative segregation and not his 

retention. (Id. at 3.) 

Further, in placing Johnson in administrative segregation to maintain order, safety, and 

security, Costa was following jail policy that inmates may be placed in administrative segregation 

for such reasons, but not for punishment or discipline. (MSJ, Costa Decl. Dkt. 33-2 at 2; Oropeza 

Decl. at 10-11). There is no evidence in the record showing that the jail policies are unnecessary 

or unjustified. Accordingly, Costa is entitled to summary judgment in her favor. 

IV. Qualified Immunity

The evidence presented by defendants also supports their claim that they are entitled to 

qualified immunity. A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether 

the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right 

Case 3:18-cv-00366-WHO Document 38 Filed 04/08/20 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Northern District of California

was clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that her conduct was 

unlawful in the situation she confronted. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 236 (2009) 

(overruling the sequence of the two-part test set forth in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) that 

required determination of a deprivation first and then whether such right was clearly established.) 

“An officer cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours 

were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in [her] shoes would have understood that 

[she] was violating it, meaning that existing precedent . . . placed the statutory or constitutional 

question beyond debate.” City and County of San Francisco, Cal. v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 

1774 (2015) (alteration and omission in original; citation omitted). “[U]nder either prong, courts 

may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the party seeking summary judgment,” and 

must, as in other cases, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See 

Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656-57 (2014).

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate 

Johnson’s right to due process. Recoder did not place Johnson in administrative segregation 

because she lacked the authority to order such placement. Costa placed Johnson in administrative 

segregation not as punishment for his disruptive behavior and threats but to maintain order and 

security. Per jail policy, Johnson was given a copy of his administrative segregation report noting 

the reasons for his placement in administrative segregation and was able to utilize the jail 

grievance procedure to express any disagreement with his placement. 

Moreover, even if there was a triable issue whether Johnson’s placement in administrative 

segregation violated his right to due process, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because 

it cannot be said that any reasonable officer would have understood that by following jail policies 

and procedures for placement in non-disciplinary administrative segregation she was violating 

Johnson’s due process rights. See Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1774. It is not clearly established that 

pretrial detainees have the right to a specific process such as a formal adversarial hearing in order 

to be placed in non-disciplinary administrative segregation. As defendants point out, a case in the 

Northern District with very similar facts, Stevenson v. Jones, 254 F.Supp.3d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 

2017), was decided shortly before the events at issue in the present case, and qualified immunity 

Case 3:18-cv-00366-WHO Document 38 Filed 04/08/20 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Northern District of California

was granted. The court in Stevenson analyzed a pretrial detainee’s due process claim involving his 

placement in administrative segregation in a county jail and held that the defendant deputy “met 

his summary judgment burden of presenting evidence that he did not place [the plaintiff] in 

administrative segregation to punish him and instead did so to maintain order in the jail’s general 

population because [the plaintiff] was disrupting the orderly operation of the housing unit.” Id. at 

1093. The court held that the plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated and granted the 

defendant qualified immunity because “[i]t cannot be said that any reasonable official in his shoes 

would have understood that he was violating [plaintiff’s] due process rights in placing him [in 

administrative segregation].” Id. at 1095 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Such is 

the case here, where defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they have met their 

summary judgment burden of presenting evidence that they did not violate Johnson’s due process 

rights and it cannot be said that any reasonable officials in their shoes would have understood that 

by their conduct they were violating Johnson’s due process rights. 

In sum, the movants’ papers are sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face 

reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 33.) 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2020

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00366-WHO Document 38 Filed 04/08/20 Page 7 of 7