Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_87-cv-01623/USCOURTS-caed-2_87-cv-01623-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

JAMES F. PIFER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-87-1623 FCD KJM P

vs.

DANIEL MCCARTHY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 General Order No.

262.

On December 14, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 467 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 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

1 Rather, the crux of plaintiff’s argument was that the

conditions of plaintiff’s incarceration was cruel and unusual

punishment because he was denied access to treatment for his

narcotics addiction while in segregation. The magistrate judge

thoroughly addressed this issue in the findings and

recommendations. Plaintiff arguably waived this additional

argument by failing to clearly raise it in his opposition.

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. However, the

court writes to briefly address plaintiff’s claims that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment because he was at

“particularly high risk for suffering from a mental illness.” 

(Pl.’s Objections, filed Jan. 24, 2007, at 5). Plaintiff did not

raise this issue with any clarity in his opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment.1 As such, the

magistrate judge did not address it in her findings and

recommendations. However, for the sake of completeness, the

court will address plaintiff’s objections herein. 

Plaintiff argues that he has presented evidence sufficient

to present a triable issue of fact that defendants knew he was at

a particularly high risk for suffering from a mental illness, and

therefore, that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights

by confining him in administrative segregation for nearly

fourteen years. Plaintiff relies exclusively on the Northern

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 467 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 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

2 Plaintiff also argues that his statement regarding the

effect of segregated housing should also be considered. However,

there is no evidence that defendants were aware of plaintiff’s

personal reflections on his experience.

3

District of California’s opinion in Madrid v. Gomez for the

proposition that this knowledge could constitute an Eighth

Amendment violation. 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In

Madrid, the court acknowledged that there may be an actionable

Eighth Amendment violation where the conditions of segregation

affect “certain categories of inmates . . . [who] are at a

particularly high risk of for suffering very serious or severe

injury to their mental health.” Id. at 1265. The court noted

that “[s]uch inmates consist of the already mentally ill, as well

as persons with borderline personality disorders, brain damage or

mental retardation, impulse-ridden personalities, or a history of

prior psychiatric problems or chronic depression.” Id.

Plaintiff contends that he has presented evidence, in the

form of the psychiatric reports in his file, that he should be

considered in this category of “high risk” inmates.2 However,

these reports do not demonstrate that plaintiff was mentally ill,

had a history of psychiatric problems, or suffered from chronic

depression. The medical reports state that plaintiff had

previously participated in group therapy, that he had narcotics

issues in the past, and that plaintiff was recommended for an ongoing treatment program for his narcotics addiction. Nothing in

the report provides that plaintiff had been diagnosed with a

mental illness or that his narcotics addiction made him more

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 467 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 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

4

susceptible to mental illness. Therefore, even if plaintiff was

a “high risk” inmate, defendants were not on notice of this fact.

Moreover, assuming arguendo that plaintiff was a “high risk”

inmate due to his narcotics addiction and that defendants should

have been on notice of this from the reports in his file,

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). At the time of the alleged

constitutional violation, the law was not clearly established in

the Ninth Circuit that inmates with narcotics addictions are at

high risk of mental illness from the conditions of segregation,

such that housing in segregation would constitute a violation of

the inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights. Cf. Madrid, 889 F. Supp.

at 1265. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 14,

2006, are adopted in full; 

2. The motion for summary judgment filed on January 30,

2006 by defendants Alvarado, Borg, Bunnell, Dowell,

Kraemer, McCarthy, Price, Rowland, Stainer, Walker and

White are granted; and

3. This case is closed.

DATED: March 20, 2007

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 467 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 4