Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-01943/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-01943-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

CARLOS GILBERT LAW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BLANDON; STAR # 1430; STAR #1342;

STAR #1634; STAR #1991; JOHN and

JANE DOE 1-10 respectively,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-1943 NJV 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND CLOSING

CASE

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a former detainee at San Francisco

County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Deputy Blandon and other persons identified

only by "Star" numbers failed to protect him from sexual assault by other inmates, and

thereby violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff filed a motion

for summary judgment on January 15, 2015. (Doc. 56.) Defendant Blandon filed a motion

for summary judgment on February 23, 2015. (Doc. 68.) Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition to Defendant Blandon's motion, despite Defendant Blandon filing a notice of

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose his motion on March 27, 2015, and providing a certificate of

service of that notice on Plaintiff. (Doc. 72.) The court has reviewed Defendant Blandon’s

motion and for the reasons set forth below, Defendant Blandon’s motion for summary

judgment is granted and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

DISCUSSION

Complaint

Plaintiff states that his jail records indicated and he also told all defendants that he

had a history of being a victim of inmate violence due to accusations of being a snitch, a

sex offender, and gay. Plaintiff alleges that defendants had seen Plaintiff's classification

Case 1:14-cv-01943-RMI Document 73 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 6
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

records. Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in general population and was sexually

assaulted by other inmates between March 19, 2014, and March 24, 2014. Amended

Complaint at 1. (Doc. 22.)

Motion for Summary Judgment

A. 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 the movant 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.

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. Catrett, 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

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

Deliberate Indifference to Safety

A pretrial detainee is not protected by the Eighth Amendment's proscription against

cruel and unusual punishment because he has not been convicted of a crime. See Bell v.

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 & n.16 (1979). Pretrial detainees are protected from

punishment without due process, however, under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746-47 (1987); Bell,

441 U.S. at 535-36. The protections of the Due Process Clause are at least as great as

those of the Eighth Amendment. See Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244

Case 1:14-cv-01943-RMI Document 73 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 6
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

(1983). In the Ninth Circuit, "deliberate indifference is the level of culpability that pretrial

detainees must establish for a violation of their personal security interests under the

[F]ourteenth [A]mendment." Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th

Cir. 1991) (abrogated on other grounds).

B. Facts

The court has reviewed Defendant Blandon's motion for summary judgment,

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint. The following

facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted. 

Deputy Blandon is a classification deputy with the San Francisco Sheriff’s

Department. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“ Defendant's MSJ”) at 4. (Doc.

68.) Deputies in the Classifications Department are responsible for interviewing new

prisoners and conducting background checks to determine appropriate housing

accommodations. Id. Classifications deputies must assign housing that balances the

safety concerns of staff, the new prisoners, and the other prisoners. Id. Classifications

deputies must be aware that many prisoners fabricate reasons for protective custody in

order to obtain a "single cell," which means they do not have to share a bathroom or have a

double bunk. Id.

Plaintiff was arrested and brought to the jail on March 18, 2014, and assessed that

day by a classification deputy. Id. at 4. However, it was non-defendant Deputy Lozada

who conducted the interview and classification process with Plaintiff. Id.; Blandon Decl.,

Ex. A. Deputy Lozada determined Plaintiff’s class and housing assignment. Id. at 4. 

Deputy Blandon is equal in the chain of command with Deputy Lozada and does not have

superiority over him. Id. Deputy Blandon did not participate in any part of the

classifications process on March 18, 2014. Blandon Decl. ¶ 9. 

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was sexually assaulted at some point

between March 19, 2014, and March 24, 2014. Am. Complaint at 1. (Doc. 22.) Deputy

Blandon first learned of plaintiff’s allegation of sexual assault during a March 29, 2014

Case 1:14-cv-01943-RMI Document 73 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 6
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

classification interview, following Plaintiff’s subsequent March 28, 2014 arrest. Defendant's

MSJ at 4. (Doc. 68.) Deputy Blandon is familiar with Plaintiff. Since June 2012, Plaintiff

has been processed through classification interviews at least sixteen times, and Deputy

Blandon has performed classification interviews with him on at least four occasions. 

Blandon Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff has claimed to need protective custody for being a confidential

informant, snitch, victim of sexual assault, and in need of protective custody from gangs

and people whom he cannot name but whose faces he knows. Id. ¶ 6. On March 18,

2014, Plaintiff’s classification records indicated that he had been in general population in

San Francisco County Jail custody on four previous occasions, all without incident. Id. ¶ 7.

C. Analysis

As noted above, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant Blandon’s motion

for summary judgment and has failed to address the arguments and factual assertions in

the motion. It is undisputed that Deputy Blandon did not conduct the classification interview

that took place immediately prior to the period in which plaintiff claims he was assaulted,

between March 19 and March 24, 2014. Deputy Blandon conducted the classification

interview with Plaintiff on March 28, 2014, after the assault allegedly occurred. Nondefendant Deputy Lozada conducted the classification interview immediately prior to the

incident, and Deputy Blandon was not involved. Further, there is no evidence that Deputy

Blandon had knowledge of the classification interview or had the opportunity or authority to

intercede in Deputy Lozada’s decision. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff states that at

some point he told Deputy Blandon he was in danger. However, Plaintiff does not state

when he made this statement or even if it occurred before the assault. These general

statements cannot defeat summary judgment. See, e.g., Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (conclusory allegations, unsupported by evidence are insufficient to

defeat a motion for summary judgment); see also Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281

F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (no “genuine issue” of fact if only evidence presented is the

“uncorroborated and self-serving” testimony of the opposing party). Therefore, summary

Case 1:14-cv-01943-RMI Document 73 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 6
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 Because the court has granted summary judgment to the defendant on the underlying

claim, the qualified immunity argument will not be addressed. 

2

Plaintiff has named other defendants, namely deputies identified only as Star #1430,

Star #1342, Star 31634, and Star 31991. Although discovery has been open in this case since

October 24, 2014, Plaintiff has never sought to amend his complaint to identify these persons

by name. They thus were never been served, have not appeared, and never became parties

to this action. 

5

judgment is granted for Deputy Blandon.1

Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment because his motion merely presents a

summary of his claim and fails to show that there is no dispute as to any material fact and

that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2

CONCLUSION

1. Defendant Blandon’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 68) is

GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 56) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s

motion to appoint counsel is (Docket No. 39) is DENIED because this case has been

closed.

3. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-01943-RMI Document 73 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 6
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

CARLOS GILBERT LAW, No. 14-CV-01943 NJV 

Plaintiff,

v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BLANDON; STAR # 1430; STAR #1342; 

STAR #1634; STAR #1991; 

JOHN and JANE DOE 1-10 respectively

Defendants.

___________________________________/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on May 1, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy of

the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed

below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

Carlos Gilbert Law 

169 6th Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103

 ____________________________________

 Linn Van Meter

 Administrative Law Clerk to

 the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

Case 1:14-cv-01943-RMI Document 73 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 6