Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CARLOS DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. DUFFLE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05488-SMS-P

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

TRIAL: November 6, 2007

This matter came on regularly for a jury trial on November

6, 2007. Upon the calling of the case and on the record, the

parties stipulated to a trial before the Court without a jury. 

The parties have consented to the exercise of Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.S. § 636(c). Plaintiff is a

federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Plaintiff is representing himself. Defendants Shawn Duffle and

Georgina Puentes are represented by Attorney Michael Charles

Kellar from the law firm of Robinson and Kellar.

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed January 8, 2004, against Defendants Puentes and Duffle on

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 8
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 Defendant Gardner was dismissed on September 29, 2005, based on plaintiff’s failure to furnish 1

information sufficient to serve defendant with process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Docs. 32, 35.)

2

Plaintiff’s equal protection claim. Various court orders have 1

been issued during the pendency of this action that have narrowed

the remaining legal issues for trial to the following: Whether

Defendants Puentes and Duffle (“Defendants”) violated Plaintiff’s

equal protection rights by treating Plaintiff differently from

another inmate when both committed rules violations.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Upon presentation of evidence, considering the testimony of

all witnesses, the exhibits received into evidence, the

statements and arguments of counsel, the Court enters the

following findings of fact and conclusions of law. In making a

finding of fact, the Court intends to rely on all evidence in the

record that is consistent with or supports the Court’s finding. 

If the Court has mistakenly categorized a finding as factual or

legal, the Court intends that the substance of the finding, and

not its label, predominate. To the extent that any finding of

fact may be interpreted or construed as a conclusion of law, or

any conclusion of law may be interpreted or construed as a

finding of fact, it is the Court’s intention that such

construction or interpretation be adopted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff John Carlos Duarte is currently a federal

prisoner in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The

events at issue in this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was

housed at the Federal Correctional Institution at Taft,

California, in December of 2002 and January of 2003.

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 8
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

2. Defendant Shawn Duffle is currently a Correctional

Sergeant at FCI Taft. In December of 2002, she was a Special

Investigative Supervisor at FCI Taft. In December of 2002,

Defendant Duffle was responsible for investigating incidents of

staff and inmate misconduct. 

3. Defendant Georgina Puentes is currently an Associate

Warden at FCI Taft. In December of 2002, she was the

Disciplinary Hearing Officer for the hearing at issue in this

lawsuit. 

4. On December 6, 2002, Plaintiff, while in the visiting

room, gave several picture frames to inmate McCullough’s

girlfriend, Anna Fedrau. In exchange, she agreed to pay

Plaintiff $50.00 by placing the money in Plaintiff’s inmate trust

account. 

5. Inmate McCullough was authorized to bring the picture

frames into the visiting area.

6. Pursuant to prison rules, inmate McCullough could

receive money deposited into his account from his girlfriend,

Anna Fedrau; Plaintiff could not.

7. Defendant Duffle was investigating an improper money

transaction based on information that staff had seen a suspicious

money order come into Plaintiff’s account.

8. Despite the fact that the offending money order in

question indicates it is issued from Brian McCullough (See

Defendant’s trial exhibit C), Sergeant Duffle testified it is

highly unlikely McCullough had an opportunity from inside the

prison to purchase a money order.

//

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 8
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

9. On December 20, 2002, Plaintiff was charged with a

violation of prison regulations. Specifically, Plaintiff was

originally charged with Taft Correctional Institution Prohibited

Acts and Disciplinary Severity Scale Code § 217, which prohibits

giving money to, or receiving money from, any person for purposes

of introducing contraband or for any other illegal or prohibited

purposes. 

10. Inmate McCullough was not charged with any offense as

he did not receive any money from an improper source.

11. Plaintiff is a Hispanic male.

12. Inmate McCullough is a Caucasian male.

13. Defendant Puentes is a Hispanic female.

14. Plaintiff appeared at a disciplinary hearing in January

of 2003. 

15. The focus of Defendant Duffle’s investigation was the

receipt of money from a source outside the prison without

authorization: “In this investigation, I was pursuing the money

exchange.” Inmate McCullough had permission to hand the picture

frames to his girlfriend, and there was no evidence McCullough

received any money from an improper source.

16. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Defendant Puentes,

found that a $50.00 money order had issued from Anna Fedrau and

had been credited to Plaintiff’s inmate trust account.

17. Plaintiff admitted to receiving $50.00 into his account

for making picture frames.

18. At the disciplinary hearing, Defendant Puentes found

that there was not enough evidence to sustain a charge against

Plaintiff of violation of Code § 217. 

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 8
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

19. Defendant Puentes did find that Plaintiff committed the 

Taft Prohibited Correctional Act of giving money or anything of

value to, or accepting money or anything of value from, another

inmate or any other person without staff authorization, in

violation of offense Code § 328.

20. The finding was based upon the following: Plaintiff’s

statement; a review of Plaintiff’s individual account report

indicating that he received a $50.00 postal money order in

December of 2002; a copy of the postal money order from an

outside source into Plaintiff’s account.

21. Plaintiff was assessed the following sanctions: 10 days

in disciplinary segregation, credit for time served; 3 months

loss of social visitation privileges; and, 3 months loss of

commissary privileges. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are

similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne v.

Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). An

equal protection claim may be established in two ways. First, a

plaintiff generally establishes an equal protection claim by

showing that a defendant has intentionally discriminated on the

basis of the plaintiff's membership in a protected class. See,

e.g., Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9 Cir.2001)

(citing Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9 Cir.1998), th

cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999)). The first step in this

equal protection analysis is to identify the asserted

classification or groups. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425

F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9 Cir. 2005); Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, th

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 8
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

68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9 Cir. 1995). The groups must be comprised th

of similarly situated persons so that the factor motivating the

alleged discrimination can be identification in the group.

Freeman, 68 F.3d at 1187. “An equal protection claim will

not lie by ‘conflating all persons not injured into a preferred

class receiving better treatment’ than the plaintiff.” Thornton,

425 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Joyce v. Mavromatis, 783 F.2d 56, 57

(9 Cir. 1986). Under this theory of equal protection, the th

plaintiff must show that the defendants’ actions were a result of

the plaintiff’s membership in a suspect class, such as race.

Thornton, 425 F.3d at 1167. “Mere indifference to the effects of

a decision on a particular class does not give rise to an equal

protection claim” Thornton, 425 F.3d at 1167; Nabozny v.

Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446, 454 (7 Cir.1996). th

If the governmental action in question does not involve a

suspect classification, a plaintiff establishes an equal

protection claim by showing similarly situated individuals are

treated differently without a rational relationship to a

legitimate state purpose. See San Antonio School District v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972); Squaw Valley Development Co. v.

Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9 Cir.2004) (quoting Village of th

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)). Without more,

the selective enforcement of valid laws is not sufficient to

establish that a defendant's conduct is irrational. Freeman v.

City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1188 (9 Cir.1995) (citing th

Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978); United States

v. Kidder,869 F.2d 1328, 1335 (9 Cir.1989)). If an equal th

protection claim is based upon selective enforcement of a valid

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 8
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

7

law, a plaintiff must show that others who are similarly situated

have not been prosecuted, and that the prosecution is based upon

an “impermissible motive.” Freeman, 68 F.3d at 1187.

1. Defendants Puentes and Duffle were acting pursuant to

federal law and in an official capacity in December of 2002 and

January of 2003.

2. The Court finds that the decision on December 20, 2002,

to charge Plaintiff with a disciplinary violation was based upon

his conduct in receiving something of value in exchange for

making picture frames.

3. The Court finds credible Defendant Puentes’s testimony

that she found Plaintiff guilty of a violation of § 328 based

upon Plaintiff’s admission that he made picture frames for inmate

McCullough’s girlfriend in exchange for something of value.

4. Plaintiff is of Hispanic origin and inmate McCullough

is White.

5. There was no basis on which to charge inmate McCullough

with a disciplinary violation related to receiving money from an

outside source. 

6. The decision not to charge inmate McCullough with a

disciplinary violation was based upon the opinion that inmate

McCullough was not directly involved with Plaintiff’s receiving

money from an outside source. While McCullough may have

“brokered” the deal, he received nothing of value for having done

so.

7. The Court finds that a rational basis exists for the

difference in treatment between inmate McCullough and Plaintiff.

// 

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8. The Court finds that Defendants did not engage in

selective enforcement of prison regulations. 

9. The Court finds that there is no evidence to support

Plaintiff’s claim that the decision to charge him with and find

him guilty of a prison disciplinary violation was based upon his

ethnicity.

10. Plaintiff did not establish that he was the victim of

discrimination on the basis of his ethnicity in violation of the

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Consejo De Desarollo

Economico De Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.35 1157, 1170

n. 4 (9 Cir. 2007)(citing to Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 th

(1954).

JUDGMENT

Judgment is hereby rendered for the Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 95 Filed 03/31/08 Page 8 of 8