Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369-15/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5369 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 71) 

 Eric Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 26, 2003. The Court dismissed the Complaint

with leave to amend on April 14, 2003. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May

12, 2003. (Doc. 8.) 

The Court again dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on September 8, 2003. 

(Doc. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 22, 2003. (Doc. 10.) On

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 14
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

February 5, 2004, the Court ordered service of the Second Amended Complaint on Defendant

Alameida. (Doc. 13.) Defendant filed an Answer on April 15, 2004. (Doc. 17.) 

A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by Defendant on October 5, 2005. (Doc. 71.) 

Plaintiff filed an Opposition on November 15, 2005. (Doc. 77.) 

B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists 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). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a Summary Judgment Motion may properly be

made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file.'" Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. Id. at 322. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the

nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. In such a

circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, "so long as whatever is before the district

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is

satisfied." Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not

rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the

form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 14
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

dispute exists. Rule 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must

demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the

suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W.

Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that

the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not

establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual

dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at

trial." T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the "purpose of summary judgment is to 'pierce

the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee's note on 1963

amendments).

In resolving the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court examines the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any. Rule 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at

255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must

be drawn in favor of the opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v.

Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)(per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out

of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the

inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D.

Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party "must do more than simply

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record taken as a

whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine

issue for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

C. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that he is transgender and that the California Department of Corrections

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 14
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 1The following facts are undisputed for the purpose of this Motion. 

4

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) regulations regarding classification (housing and yard placement). 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the regulations are “deliberately indifferent” to his safety

and/or fail to protect him, as well as other inmates who are homosexual, bisexual, and

transgender because they do not consider one’s sexual orientation in determining his

classification. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief only. 

C. UNDISPUTED FACTS1

1. Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 

2. Plaintiff is a male inmate who was housed in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) at

California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) at the time this suit was filed. 

3. Plaintiff is not a bisexual or a transsexual. 

4. Plaintiff’s sexual orientation is consistent with that of a homosexual male. 

5. CDCR has an established classification process that is used to assess and assign

inmates to an appropriate prison; make decisions at the assigned prison regarding

custody restrictions, work or program assignments; and to make subsequent

transfers. 

6. Upon an inmate’s arrival within the prison system, all inmates, including parolees

that are returned to custody, are processed through a reception center. The reception

center provides inmates with an orientation into prison life, and introduction to

available programs. 

7. The reception center staff collect information regarding the social and criminal

history of the inmate and a personal interview is also generally conducted by the

counseling staff of each inmate. An interview is also conducted by medical staff to

determine if there are any medical or mental health issues that require referral for

further medical and/or mental health diagnosis, treatment or recommendation. 

8. Counselors at the reception center complete an Institutional Staff Recommendation

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 14
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

Summary (“ISRS”) for each newly committed or recommitted inmate, as well as

other informational forms and the classification score sheet. A significant amount of

information is obtained through this process regarding the inmate and is used by

CDCR to assess the security level of an inmate, so as to determine where the inmate

can be appropriately housed. For example, the ISRS, a comprehensive summary

regarding the inmate, including: social history; medical and dental information;

psychiatric and psychological information; enemy information; work skills;

information regarding narcotics, drugs, or alcohol use; escape history; arson history;

sex-related history; academic or vocational history; casework follow-up; criminal

history; holds and detainers; and indications of any confidential information

contained in the file. 

9. A prisoner may also have special case factors that reflect a need for safety protection.

These needs are considered in the classification process along with numerous other

special case factors include, but are not limited to: 

* Age: An inmate’s youthfulness, immaturity, or advanced age. 

* Behavior: An inmate’s behavior record indicates he or she is

capable of successful placement at an institution level lower

than that indicated by his or her score. 

* Enemies: Inmate has one or more persons under jurisdiction of

the Department has been documented on a CDC Form 812 as

an enemy. This should also be used when victimization is very

probable due to case factors, such as where the nature of the

offense will very likely create an enemy situation at certain

institutions. Includes current protective housing unit (“PHU”_

cases and those who are natural victims because of their

appearance or commitment offense. 

* Family ties: An inmate has strong family ties to a particular

area where other placement would cause a hardship. 

* Gang involvement or affiliation: Documentation establishes

that the inmate’s gang association requires special attention or

placement consideration. 

* Medical: The inmate’s medical condition may require

treatment or continuing medical attention not generally

available at all facilities. 

* Psychiatric: The inmate’s mental condition requires special

treatment or may severely limit placement options. Included

for consideration are Category B inmates. 

* Oral Copulation: An inmate has a history or prior incidence of

oral copulation which may require restricted custody or

placement decision. 

* Sexual Orientation: Bisexual or homosexual orientation may

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 14
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

require special placement. 

10. Special case factors are designated as administrative determinants in the

classification process. Administrative determinants are used to reflect the special

case factors that may require the placement of a prisoner in a particular prison or type

of prison. More than one administrative determinant may be considered. 

11. If an inmate needs to be considered for special placement because of his sexual

orientation, such as bisexual or homosexual, the administrative determinate “SOR”

can be placed on his classification. A transgender inmate on hormone therapy may

also be considered for administrative determinate “SOR.” 

12. Upon determining the security level of an individual inmate, and considering any

special case factors, the counselor makes formal recommendations regarding the

placement of an inmate, and then the counselor’s supervisor conducts a review. 

13. All the completed forms, documentation, and information regarding all newly

committed inmates is then provided to the Classification Services Representative

(“CSR”) for review. The CSR considers the recommendations, but makes the final

determination regarding housing that is consistent with the inmate’s case factors, as

well as availability of cells at each institution. 

14. The regulations regarding classification consider an individual inmate’s total case

factors for purposes of housing and yard assignment. The CDCR does not have a

specific classification procedure designed to assess an inmate’s housing or yard

needs solely or exclusively based on their sexual orientation. 

15. CDCR used to categorize homosexual, bisexual, or transgender inmates, classifying

them as “Category B” inmates and placing them in facilities such as California

Medical Facility (“CMF”). However, CDCR no longer utilizes and recommends

placement solely on this categorization. Instead, all case factors are considered when

determining the placement of inmates. 

16. While CDCR does not identify or stigmatize inmates based on their sexual

orientation, an inmate’s sexual orientation is a special case factor that is considered

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 14
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

and may be relevant to institutional placement. Furthermore, safety and security are

the main factors considered, and an inmate with one or more administrative or

irregular placement conditions (known as an administrative determinants) may be

housed in a facility with a security level which is inconsistent with the inmate’s

placement score. 

17. After an inmate is transferred from the reception center to a facility, he is again

interviewed by the receiving institution and appropriately housed within the facility. 

The inmate once again goes through another orientation, which includes information

regarding the facility, the appeal process, as well as the inmate’s right to appeal

decisions including, but not limited to, decisions regarding housing and yard

placement. 

18. Shortly after the inmate’s arrival at the facility, he is seen by a classification

committee for an initial review to determine program needs, and to once again

evaluate and determine the appropriateness of being housed at that facility. 

19. Thereafter, at least annually, if not more often in some cases, the Institutional

Classification Committee (“ICC”) and/or the Unit Classification Committee

(“UCC”) will review and evaluate the appropriateness of an inmate’s placement

needs, fully considering any issues relating to safety and security. 

20. In the event that an inmate believes he has been inappropriately classified and/or

placed, either for purposes of housing or yard placement, or if the inmate believes

that his placement presents concerns for his safety, there are several policies and

procedures in place by which the inmate can express his concerns so that they may

be considered and adequately addressed. For example, an inmate may raise his

concerns with the committee members at his hearings(s); the inmate is entitled to

present an appeal regarding these determinations by utilizing the 602 appeal process;

the inmate may notify a correctional officer of his concerns for safety issues; or the

inmate may discuss his concerns with his own counselor. 

D. ANALYSIS 

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 14
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

2The proposed revisions are that the CDC screen gay, bi, transgender prisoners for assignments of housing

and yard groups with compatible inmates; add a special Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) for gay, bi, and transgender

prisoners to be shared with inmates who are “compatible;” upon receipt of new inmates, inmates be asked about their

sexual orientation and whether they are inmates who can program with gay prisoners; the Unit and Institutional

Classification Committees must inform gay, gi and transgender inmates of the risks of programming on active gang

lines and inform of the potential for rape and violence; gay, bi, and transgender inmates must be given the option of

programming on a sensitive line and must complete a consent form to that effect; inmates be allowed to choose to

single cell rather than dormitory, until such time as the inmate approves a compatible cellmate. Second Amended

Compl. at 7-8. 

8

Plaintiff contends that the screening process and placement decisions are unconstitutional

because they are “deliberately indifferent” to his and other homosexual, bisexual, and

transgender inmate’s safety. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of an

Order that implements his proposed policy revisions, which include the right of gay, bisexual or

transgender inmate to choose his cellmate.2

The Ninth Circuit has held that a traditional Eighth Amendment analysis should be

applied to an Eighth Amendment challenge to a prison regulation rather than the test set forth in

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 89, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 (1987.) Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d

1521, 1525 (9th Cir. 1993). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that

he suffered from the “wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.

337, 347 (1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must

provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id.;

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,

1246 (9th Cir. 1982). “Under traditional Eighth Amendment analysis, we first consider whether

there is an ‘infliction of pain,’ and, if so, whether that infliction is ‘unnecessary and wanton’.”

Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). To determine whether the

policy is “necessary,” the Court considers the prison’s security interests. Id. at 1526-27. To

determine if the infliction of pain is “wanton,” the Court looks to see if prison officials acted

with “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner’s needs. Id. at 1527. 

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishment Clause depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8

(1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 8 of 14
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

responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. at 8 (quotations and citations omitted). 

“[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment] conditions-ofconfinement claim.” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect to this type of claim, “[b]ecause

routine discomfort is part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against

society, only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are

sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. (quotations and

citations omitted). 

To prevail on his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must establish beyond

controversy every essential element of his claim. Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194

(5th Cir. 1986). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of

the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’

but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting

Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

In this case, Defendant presents evidence of the regulations used to classify inmates upon

their reception into the institution. The California Code of Regulations provide that upon the

classification process, which commences upon reception, “shall” take into consideration the

inmate’s needs, interests and desires, his/her behavior and placement score in keeping with the

department and institution’s/facility’s program and security missions and public safety. 

Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3375(a), (b). The regulations used to assess and place inmates in

appropriate housing, work, and/or program assignments consider an inmates sexual orientation as

well as a host of other criteria necessary to appropriately classify an inmate. Specifically, when

inmates are processed through the reception center, staff conduct a personal interview to collect

information from each inmate concerning their social and criminal history. Cal.Code Regs. tit.

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 9 of 14
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

3California Department of Corrections Operations Manual (“DOM”) § 61010.4.

4DOM § 61010.4.

5DOM § 61010.4.

6DOM § 61010.11.3.

10

15, § 3075.1(a)(6); Ex. O, Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“DUF”).3 An evaluation

of the inmate is also conducted by medical staff to determine whether there are any medical or

mental health issues that require referral for further treatment or diagnosis. Cal.Code Regs. tit.

15, § 3075.1(c); Ex. O, DUF.4

The regulations require the completion of a Institutional Staff Recommendation Summary

(“ISRS”) for each newly committed inmate and parole violator in addition to a classification

score sheet and other required forms. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3075.1(a)(6), (h); Ex. O, DUF.5

The information obtained through this process is used to assess the security level and housing of

an inmate and includes information such as the inmate’s social history, medical and dental

information, psychiatric and psychological information, enemy information, work skills,

information regarding narcotics, drugs, or alcohol use, escape, arson, and sex-related histories,

academic or vocational history, casework follow-up, criminal history, holds and detainers and

indications of any confidential information contained in the inmate’s file. Cal. Code Regs. tit.

15, § 3075.1(h)(1). 

An inmate having one or more administrative or irregular placement conditions which are

known as “administrative determinants” may be housed in a facility with a security level that is

not consistent with the inmate’s placement score. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3375.2(a). These

special case factors include the inmate’s age, behavior, enemies, family ties, gang involvement or

affiliation, lewd and lascivious conduct, medical and psychiatric condition, history of oral

copulation and, most notably, the inmate’s sexual orientation. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3375.2

(b)(1)-(25); Ex. O,6 DUF. According to the regulations provided by Defendants, if an inmate is

considered for special placement because of his sexual orientation, the administrative

determinant “SOR” can be placed on his classification to inform of his special needs. Cal.Code

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 10 of 14
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

7DOM § 61010.11.3.

8DOM § 61030.6.2. 

9Rianda Decl. 

10Plaintiff’s Deposition (“Pl’s Dep.”) at 53:5-17

11Pl.’s Dep. at 53:5-25; 54:1-13.

11

Regs. Tit. 15, § 3375.(2)(b)(23); Ex. O,7 DUF. After collection of all of the above information

and review, the classification counselor makes a formal recommendation regarding the placement

of the inmate. Ex. O,8 Ex. A,9 DUF. 

In addition, Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff, was previously given a “Category

B” classification which indicated that the inmate was homosexual, bisexual, or transgender and

caused the inmate to be placed in facilities like the California Medical Facility (“CMF”). 

Ex. D, DUF; Ex. C,10 DUF. However, he requested that the category be removed and he be

placed back into general population. Ex. B, attach 4, 5; Ex. C11, DUF. Each time Plaintiff later

returned to custody, he was again evaluated and his sexual orientation (“SOR”) in addition to

other factors, was considered in determining his placement needs. Exhs. B-attach 1, C, D, E, F,

H, I; Pl.’s Dep. 60:11-20; 62.13. 

Based on the evidence provided, the Court finds Defendant has demonstrated that the

established classification regulations were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s or any other

inmates needs as a homosexual, bi-sexual, transsexual or transgender. Accordingly, the burden

therefore shifts to Plaintiff to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does

exist. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 

As stated above, in attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, Plaintiff

may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but is required to tender

evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in

support of its contention that the dispute exists. Rule 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11;

First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Service. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968); Strong v. France, 474 F.2d 747,

749 (9th Cir. 1973).

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 11 of 14
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

12

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence demonstrating that Defendant Alameida personally

participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed

to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy

‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional

violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)(internal citations omitted). 

Plaintiff further fails to demonstrate that the regulations disregard or fail to consider one’s

sexual orientation in classifying or housing an inmate. In fact, the evidence before shows that

Plaintiff’s sexual orientation has been considered throughout his time within the California

Department of Corrections. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s main complaint is that he was not given placement on the

Sensitive Needs Yard as he requested. However, the denial of Plaintiff’s request does not

constitute a constitutional violation nor does it establish that the statute disregarded Plaintiff’s

needs. Plaintiff concedes in his deposition that he has been housed in a dormitory where all the

inmates were homosexual, bi-sexual, transsexual, or transgender. In addition, many of Plaintiff’s

cellmates have been homosexual. In fact, Plaintiff states that the only documented mutual

combat situation was between himself and his “gay” cellmate as a result of being “catty” to each

other. Pl.’s Dep. at 65. While housed in the general population at the Donovan reception center,

Plaintiff had no problems with either staff or other inmates. Pl.’s Dep. At 58: 1-25. Plaintiff’s

history of SHU terms stem from his disciplinary history of attacking staff. Ex. D-G, DUF. 

According to the evidence, Plaintiff has successfully double celled at California Correctional

Institution where he is currently housed, however, he is currently classified as single-cell or “S”

status. Ex. B, attach 7; Ex. L, DUF. Plaintiff is assigned to an individual exercise module

(“IEM”) yard, as he has expressed safety concerns with the other exercise yards available. Id. 

Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, the evidence shows that Plaintiff’s sexual orientation

has been taken into account by the CDC regulations and staff for purposes of classification,

housing and yard placement.

Plaintiff complains that there is “no existing law or policy and procedure for transgender

inmates” and thus, assumes that existing policies are deliberately indifferent to him. (Plaintiff’s

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 12 of 14
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

12The Court notes that two of the four declarations were prepared by Plaintiff on behalf of the inmate

signing the declaration. 

13

Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts No. 33.) However, this fact is insufficient to establish a

constitutional violation. As noted above, Plaintiff must demonstrate an unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain. Plaintiff provides declarations from four inmates, however, these declarations

do not aid Plaintiff in his task of establishing a disputed issue of fact. The declarations tend to

provide support for the fact that Plaintiff has requested to be placed on the Sensitive Needs Yard

but his request has been denied (Ex. A, Opposition [“Opp.”]), that Plaintiff’s proposed changes

to classification procedures would be good (Ex., I, Opp.), or provide personal information about

the stigma attached to being bi, gay or transsexual in a prison setting. (Exs, I, P, Opp.).12 The

declarations, however, are insufficient to demonstrate a widespread disregard of sexual

orientation within the Department of Corrections. 

Plaintiff provides no evidence to establish the requisite intent needed to meet his burden

of proving an Eighth Amendment claim. As noted above, it is not enough that a prison official

should have know of a risk or harm; rather, the official must actually be aware of facts from

which the inference could be drawn, actually draw the inference, and nonetheless disregard the

risk to the inmate’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1980 (1994). Here,

Plaintiff concedes that those times where he felt he had safety concerns he choose not raise those

concerns to any prison staff even after he experienced in-cell assaults. Pl.’s Dep. 72:3-15; 95:7-

15; 175:18-25; 176:1-9. When Plaintiff did raise such concerns, he states that staff took

immediate action to protect him from harm. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to

demonstrate that Defendant knew of and disregarded a risk to his safety. 

In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s contentions that a homosexual or

transgender inmate’s inability to “choose” whether to have a cellmate, who that cellmate is, or

that there is no regulation in place only applicable to transgenders, do not rise to the level of

constitutional violations. Moreover, based on the aforementioned evidence and contrary to

Plaintiff’s assertions, the challenged regulations clearly consider an inmate’s sexual orientation

in making classification decisions. Accordingly, the Court finds no disputed issue of fact and

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 13 of 14
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

14

that the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. 

The determination that the regulation does not disregard one’s sexual orientation in

classification or placement in a particular institution is dispositive of any implied allegation of

supervisory liability. 

E. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be GRANTED and the case DISMISSED. 

The Court further ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to

the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 03/28/06 Page 14 of 14