Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00898-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 17, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 53.) The 

motion included a Rand1 warning to Plaintiff. (Doc. 53-1.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion and the time to do so has passed. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff contends he was exposed to hazardous toxic substances while incarcerated at 

Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) from 2010 to 2012 and was diagnosed with 

“Dermatofibrosacoma Proberans (DFSP) in 2018.” He alleges DFSP is a rare form of cancer 

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 16
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

associated with arsenic exposure. He further contends he was “exposed to arsenic water, and 

forced to drink” that water at KVSP. Plaintiff asserts KVSP was non-compliant with “U.S.E.P.A. 

regulation standards” during his incarceration at KVSP. Plaintiff states: “Notification protocol 

failed to inform of major risk factors of arsenic in lung, and skin cancer,” and that arsenic is a 

“class 1 human carcinogen with long term effects ....” Plaintiff contends arsenic “levels remained 

in U.S.E.P.A. regulatory violation during notification, and continued to be at maximum 

permissible under federal standard” during his incarceration at KVSP from 2010 through 2012. 

Plaintiff alleges Defendants were aware of the risks presented and failed to take action to alleviate 

the risks. Plaintiff contends his injuries include skin cancer; joint, kidney and organ pain; skin 

lesions; “abnormal” anxiety; psychological disorder; mental distress; and unnatural thoughts and 

feelings. 

Following screening of the complaint, the Court found Plaintiff plausibly alleged Eighth 

Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Defendants Cate and Biter. Plaintiff 

established the first objective prong of the deliberate indifference test by alleging the arsenic to 

which he was exposed via the drinking water at KVSP is the cause of his DFSP, a sufficiently 

serious deprivation. Plaintiff also established the second subjective prong of the test by plausibly 

alleging that Defendants Cate and Biter were aware of the risk presented and disregarded the 

excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health and safety. 

III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants Cate and Biter assert they were not deliberately indifferent to the nondangerous levels of arsenic in KVSP’s water. (Doc. 53-1 at 6-7.) Specifically, Defendants 

contend KVSP’s water did not objectively present a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff 

(id. at 7-9), and Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants were subjectively indifferent to a serious 

risk of harm related to KVSP’s water (id. at 9-11). Defendants also contend they are entitled to 

qualified immunity. (Id. at 11-14.) 

//

//

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 16
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

IV. DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS2

1. Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez is a former inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 

2. Plaintiff was incarcerated at KVSP from July 8, 2010, to May 2, 2012.

3. Defendant Cate was employed as the Secretary of CDCR from May 16, 2008, to 

November 2012. 

4. Defendant Biter became KVSP’s Acting Warden in August 2019, and was named 

Warden in February 2013. He held this position until November 2015.

5. In 2001, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) updated 

its maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water to 10 parts per billion (0.010 mg/L) of 

arsenic from 50 parts per billion (0.050 mg/L). This standard did not become effective until 2006.

6. This was a significant reduction as it is impossible to find drinking water in the 

environment free of arsenic.

7. The State of California adopted the U.S. EPA’s new arsenic MCL standard in 

November 2008.

8. As of July 6, 2010, 1,375 of the 10, 425 wells sampled in California had arsenic 

concentrations above the federal MCL. Kern County is one of the counties with the most wells 

above the arsenic MCL. 

9. KVSP has two wells that provide drinking water for the entire prison, which 

provide the same water to inmates and staff.

10. Between July 2010 and July 2012, KVSP’s arsenic level was less than half the 

former MCL, with quarterly averages for its two wells between approximately 0.014 mg/L and 

0.020 mg/L. 

11. As Acting Warden and Warden, Warden Biter posted quarterly notices reporting 

2 Because Plaintiff did not file an opposition, he neither admitted or denied the facts set forth by defendant 

as undisputed nor filed a separate statement of disputed facts. Local Rule 260(b). A verified complaint in a 

pro se civil rights action may constitute an opposing affidavit for purposes of the summary judgment rule, 

where the complaint is based on an inmate's personal knowledge of admissible evidence, and not merely 

on the inmate's belief. McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197-98 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curium); Lew v. 

Kona Hospital, 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir. 1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 16
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

the levels of arsenic in KVSP’s drinking water. The notices conformed with the ones the 

California Department of Public Health required KVSP to post. 

12. The quarterly notices states that the arsenic levels at KVSP did not present an 

emergency.

13. The quarterly notices stated that the inmates did not need to use an alternative 

water source.

14. The quarterly notices did not state that KVSP’s specific arsenic concentrations 

were high enough to cause illness.

15. While Warden Biter was KVSP’s Acting Warden and Warden, KVSP and Warden 

Biter provided annual consumer confidence reports about KVSP’s water to staff and inmates.

16. While Warden Biter was KVSP’s Acting Warden and Warden, KVSP and Warden 

Biter tested KVSP’s drinking water for contaminants and provided the results to the California 

Department of Public Health.

17. Arsenic poisoning is generally in one of two forms: acute arsenic poisoning and 

chronic arsenic poisoning. Generally, acute arsenic poisoning results from exposure to high 

concentrations of arsenic over a short period of time, while chronic arsenic poisoning results from 

exposure to low concentrations of arsenic over a long period of time.

18. Acute arsenic poisoning causes severe gastrointestinal illness, with nausea, 

vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. This is followed by a variety of hematological effects 

(blood diseases), neurological effects (peripheral neuropathy), kidney failure, and respiratory 

failure. 

19. Most cases of acute arsenic poisoning occur from accidental ingestion of 

insecticides or pesticides and less commonly from attempted suicide.

20. No acute health effects have been documented in the scientific literature from 

arsenic exposure at the levels reported at KVSP between July 2010 and July 2012.

21. Plaintiff did not ingest water at KVSP in anywhere near high enough 

concentrations of arsenic to cause acute arsenic poisoning. 

22. To determine whether a chronic medical condition could have been caused by 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 16
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

arsenic exposure, experts look to the dosage (concentration of arsenic consumed), duration of 

exposure, and latency (duration of time between the first exposure and onset of the condition). 

23. Plaintiff does not meet the dosage, duration, or latency metrics to cause chronic 

arsenic poisoning.

24. There are no reports in the scientific literature of joint, kidney, or organ pain, 

abnormal anxiety, psychological disorder, mental distress, or unnatural thoughts and feelings 

resulting from the level of exposure and duration of exposure experienced by Plaintiff.

25. There are no reports in the scientific literature of dermatofibrosarcoma 

protuberans, or other cancers, resulting from the level of exposure, duration of exposure, and 

latency period experienced by Plaintiff. 

26. Plaintiff did not become ill from ingesting the arsenic in KVSP’s water.

27. No toxicologist has informed Plaintiff the water was dangerous.

28. In 2008, after medical staff reported receiving injuries from inmates regarding 

KVSP’s arsenic levels, KVSP’s Chief Medical Executive (CME) Dr. S. Lopez, D.O. contacted 

the California Poison Control System, Fresno/Madera, to inquire as to the possible health 

concerns raised by the levels of arsenic detected in KVSP’s water.

29. Dr. R. Geller, M.D., M.P.H., from California Poison Control, responded to Dr. 

Lopez that there were zero expected health problems, acute or chronic, presented by arsenic at 

concentrations of 22 parts per billion, such as KVSP’s water.

30. Dr. Geller further stated that there was no need for other public health action.

31. The process of installing an arsenic-removal plant at KVSP began in 2005. 

Construction on the arsenic-removal plant at KVSP began in October 2011, and continued until 

finished in December 2012. The project closed in January 2013.

32. The California Department of Public Health approved CDCR’s plan to install an 

arsenic-removal plant.

33. The California Department of General Services had approval authority over the 

arsenic-removal contracting process and the California State Legislature had funding authority.

34. When Cate became Secretary of CDCR, he was made aware that a solution was 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 16
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

already in progress to bring KVSP into regulatory compliance with the new arsenic standard. 

Accordingly, Secretary Cate did not need to choose a different solution.

35. Secretary Cate delegated responsibility and authority of the bidding, planning, 

design, and construction of the arsenic-removal plant to CDCR’s Facility Planning, Construction, 

and Management Division.

36. KVSP’s plan used a coagulation/filtration process, which the EPA considers a best 

available technology. 

37. KVSP considered drilling new wells or installing point-of-use filters at the prison, 

but determined those alternatives were not viable because of cost, feasibility of correcting the 

issue, and because the water did not present a risk to inmate and staff health to necessitate them.

38. CDCR also considered the possibility of connecting to the City of Delano’s water 

system, which was working to build an arsenic-removal plant. It conducted an analysis and 

determined that a KVSP stand-alone plant was the best option.

39. Secretary Cate was informed that KVSP’s water did not pose a substantial risk of 

serious harm to inmates and staff. Secretary Cate never had any information, knowledge, or 

reason to believe that an alternative water source for all inmates and staff at KVSP was necessary 

while the arsenic-removal plant was being designed, planned, funded, and built.

40. Secretary Cate was never informed that the level of arsenic in the drinking water at 

KVSP presented a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff, or anyone else.

41. As the Acting Warden and Warden, Warden Biter did not have the personal 

authority to authorize a project the size of the arsenic-removal plant.

42. When Warden Biter was made KVSP’s Acting Warden, he understood CDCR had 

already determined that installing an arsenic-removal plant was the best way to bring KVSP’s 

water into compliance with the MCL.

43. Warden Biter consulted with CME Dr. Lopez regarding the drinking water and 

was informed that the levels did not present a health concern.

44. Warden Biter was never informed that the levels of arsenic in KVSP’s drinking 

water presented a danger to Plaintiff, or anyone else.

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 6 of 16
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

45. Warden Biter was never informed by a qualified health official that an alternative 

water source was necessary while the arsenic-removal plant was being designed and built.

46. Warden Biter deferred to the expertise of KVSP plant operations staff on matters 

regarding arsenic compliance. The staff working on the removal plant would report back to 

Warden Biter regarding the progress of the planning, design, and installation of the plant.

47. While KVSP was out of compliance with the new MCL, the California 

Department of Public Health never ordered KVSP to stop providing water from its wells to staff 

and inmates, never revoked KVSP’s permit to provide water, and never ordered KVSP to provide 

an alternative water source.

48. Since completion of the KVSP arsenic-removal plant, KVSP has complied with 

the MCL.

(Doc. 53-3 [UDF].) 

V. JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants request this Court take judicial notice of the CDCR Quarterly Status Report of 

Capital Outlay Projects for the CDCR, Arsenic Removal Water Treatment System of March 31, 

2013, and the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality GAMA Program, 

Groundwater Information Sheet, Arsenic of July 6, 2010. (Doc. 54.) 

A court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they 

are either “(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of 

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201.

Here, the CDCR Quarterly Status Report and State Water Resources Control Board 

Groundwater Information Sheet are the type of facts the Court may take judicial notice of and

Defendants’ request is granted. See Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 978 n.2 (9th Cir. 

2007) (explaining that a court may take judicial notice of a government publication); Winnemem 

Wintu Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (a court may 

take judicial notice of records and reports of administrative bodies); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Tennessee 

Val. Auth., 387 F. Supp. 498, 500 n.1 (N.D. Ala. 1974) (taking judicial notice of Tennessee 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 7 of 16
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

Valley Authority reports). 

VI. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Legal Standards 

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated 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). A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by 

“citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, 

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for 

purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials....” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

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. See

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an 

essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. 

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. See 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 allegations or denials 

of their 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 or shows 

that the materials cited by the movant do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c); 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. See 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). The party must also 

demonstrate that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could 

return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 8 of 16
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

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 summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to be 

believed. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the 

facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 

U.S. at 587. Inferences are not drawn out of the air and the opposing party must produce a factual 

predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See 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). 

B. Legal Standards Concerning Conditions of Confinement Claims

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Morgan v. 

Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). No matter where they are housed, prison 

officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, 

sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(quotation marks & citations omitted). To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the 

prisoner must “show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference. . ..” Labatad v. 

Corrections Corp. of America, 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Gibson v. County of 

Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong. 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 9 of 16
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

10

First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 834. Second, subjectively, the prison official must “know of and disregard an excessive 

risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th 

Cir. 1995). 

Objectively, extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement 

claim and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are 

sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 

U.S. 1, 9 (1992). The Constitution “‘does not mandate comfortable prisons.’” Wilson v. Seiter, 

501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)). However, 

“inmates are entitled to reasonably adequate sanitation, personal hygiene, and laundry privileges, 

particularly over a lengthy course of time.” Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir. 

1989).

Subjectively, if an objective deprivation is shown, a plaintiff must show that prison 

officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, that of “deliberate indifference.” Wilson, 

501 U.S. at 303; Labatad, 714 F.3d at 1160. “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, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘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, 290 F.3d at 1188)). To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner may 

rely on circumstantial evidence; in fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to 

establish knowledge. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

The exposure to toxic substances can support a claim under section 1983. See Wallis v. 

Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 1995) (exposure to asbestos). An Eighth Amendment 

claim alleging a failure to provide clean or safe water is a conditions of confinement claim. Reed 

v. Harrington, No. 1:11-CV-01883-AWI, 2013 WL 1627622, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 10 of 16
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

11

(analyzing claim that prison water had levels of arsenic higher than EPA standards under a 

conditions of confinement standard); Carroll v. DeTella, 255 F.3d 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2001) 

(“Poisoning the prison water supply or deliberately inducing cancer in a prisoner would be forms 

of cruel and unusual punishment, and might be even if the harm was probabilistic or future rather 

than certain and immediate”); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-37 (1993) (using 

“demonstrably unsafe drinking water” as a hypothetical example of a potential conditions of 

confinement claim).

C. Analysis

Defendants contend KVSP’s water was safe, the arsenic levels in KVSP’s water were not 

ignored and Plaintiff suffered no harm. As a result, Defendants assert Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate the required elements of his conditions of confinement claims against Defendants 

Cate and Biter.

Plaintiff Fails to Prove the Objective Element of His Eighth Amendment Claim

Defendants have presented evidence that KVSP’s water did not present an objectively 

serious risk of harm. In 2001, the EPA updated its maximum contamination level (MCL) to 0.010 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) (or 10 micrograms per liter [mcg/L] or 10 parts per billion) of arsenic. 

(UDF 5.) The State of California adopted the EPA's arsenic MCL standard in November 2008. 

(UDF 7.) Arsenic is one of many trace elements found in abundance occurring naturally in the 

environment. (Doc. 53-10, ¶ 14.) Between July 2010 and July 2012, KVSP’s arsenic level was 

less than half the former MCL, with quarterly averages for its two wells between approximately 

0.014 mg/L and 0.020 mg/L. (UDF 10.) This was substantially under the prior EPA and 

California maximum contaminant level of 0.050 mg/L. (UDF 5, 7, 10.)

Notices were posted quarterly stating that the amount of arsenic in KVSP’s water did not 

present an emergency. (UDF 11-12.) The notices also informed inmates that they did not need to 

use an alternative water source. (UDF 13.) During the period KVSP was out of the compliance 

with the modified MCL, the California Department of Public Health did not order KVSP to stop 

providing water from its wells to staff and inmates, did not revoke KVSP’s permit to provide 

water, and never ordered KVSP to provide an alternative water source. (UDF 47.) Following 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 11 of 16
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

completion of the arsenic-removal plant, KVSP has complied with the applicable MCL. (UDF 

48.) 

Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that the risk of arsenic exposure was “so grave that it 

violate[d] contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwilling to such risk.” Helling, 

509 U.S. at 36. The risk cannot be one that “today's society chooses to tolerate.” Id. As of July 6, 

2010, when Plaintiff was at KVSP, approximately 1,375 of 10,425 wells sampled in California 

had MCL concentrations above the MCL. Kern County, where KVSP is located, was one of the 

counties with the most wells out of compliance. (UDF 8.) 

Additionally, no acute health effects have been documented in the scientific literature 

from arsenic exposure at the levels reported at KVSP between July 2010 and July 2012. (UDF 

20.) Plaintiff’s consumption of water at KVSP did not involve high enough concentrations of

arsenic to cause acute arsenic poisoning. (UDF 21.) Nor does Plaintiff meet the dosage, duration, 

or latency metrics to cause chronic arsenic poisoning. (UDF 22-23.) There are no reports in the 

scientific literature of joint, kidney, or organ pain, abnormal anxiety, psychological disorder, 

mental distress, or unnatural thoughts and feeling. (UDF 24.) Nor are there any reports of 

dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans or other cancers resulting from the level and duration of 

Plaintiff’s exposure and the latency period he experienced. (UDF 25.) Finally, Plaintiff was never 

informed by a toxicologist that the water he consumed was dangerous. (UDF 27.) 

With respect to Plaintiff’s medical condition, Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that 

no toxicologist had informed him the water at KVSP was dangerous. (UDF 27.) Moreover, Dr. T. 

Durrani, a board certified physician in family medicine, general preventative medicine and public 

health, occupational medicine, and medical toxicology, and Associate Chief of Clinical Services 

in the Division of Occupational, Environmental and Climate Medicine at the University of 

California San Francisco, Medical Director of Occupational Health Services at San Francisco 

General Hospital, Assistant Medical Director for the California Poison Control System, San 

Francisco Division, and Attending Physician for the Medical Toxicology Inpatient Service of San 

Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, deposition 

transcript, and medical records maintained by the CDCR, and KVSP’s quarterly drinking water 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 12 of 16
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

13

notices from July 2010 to July 2012. (Doc. 53-10, ¶¶ 1-2, 7.) Based upon his professional training 

and experience, review and understanding of texts and articles in peer-reviewed medical literature 

concerning arsenic, and his review of Plaintiff’s medical records, Dr. Durrani opined that 

Plaintiff’s belief that he suffers or will suffer any adverse health effects from drinking water at 

KVSP is mistaken. (Id., ¶ 31.) Dr. Durrani states there is no evidence that Plaintiff was exposed to 

arsenic in KVSP’s drinking water in sufficient amounts over a sufficient length of time to cause 

any harm to Plaintiff’s health. (Id.) Dr. Durrani further states there is no clinical evidence based 

on authoritative research in the area of arsenic poisoning that consuming arsenic in the 

concentration consumed by Plaintiff for the relevant period would result in the conditions alleged 

by Plaintiff or in any other harm. (Id.)

The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden on summary judgment by 

producing evidence that drinking water containing arsenic in concentrations of less than 0.050 

mg/L is safe to consume, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that drinking water with an 

arsenic concentration of 0.022 mg/L, like KVSP’s water, posed a risk to Plaintiff’s health. There 

is also no link to any medical consequences that Plaintiff suffered as a result of the arsenic levels 

at KVSP. Plaintiff has failed to rebut Defendants’ evidence concerning the objective element of 

his conditions of confinement claims. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 

n.11. 

Plaintiff Fails to Prove the Subjective Element of His Eighth Amendment Claim

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. It requires a 

“sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Hearns v. Terhune, 431 F.3d at 1040. Defendants are only 

liable if they knew of an excessive risk of harm and disregarded the risk. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

838. A defendant must be “aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a 

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [the defendant] must [] draw the inference.” Id. If the 

defendant did not know about the risk, he or she did not inflict the injury. Id.

It is undisputed that when he became Secretary of CDCR, Defendant Cate was made 

aware that a solution to the arsenic levels in KVSP’s water was already in progress to ensure 

KVSP would become compliant with the modified arsenic standard. (UDF 34.) As a result, Cate 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 13 of 16
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

did not choose a different solution. (UDF 34.) Cate delegated responsibility and authority for the 

arsenic-removal plant to the Facility Planning, Construction, and Management Division, whose 

plan was approved by the California Department of Public Health. (UDF 32, 35-38.) Cate was 

informed that KVSP’s water did not pose a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates or staff. 

(UDF 39-40.) Cate had no knowledge, information, or reason to believe that an alternative water 

source for all inmates and staff at KVSP was necessary. (UDF 39.) 

It is also undisputed that when he became Acting Warden at KVSP, Defendant Biter 

understood CDCR had already determined that installing an arsenic-removal plant was the best 

way to bring KVSP’s water into compliance with the MCL. (UDF 42.) Biter was informed by 

CME Lopez that the levels of arsenic in KVSP’s drinking water did not present a health concern. 

(UDF 43.) Biter was never informed the levels of arsenic presented a danger to Plaintiff or any 

other person, nor was he ever informed an alternative water source was necessary. (UDF 44-45.) 

The evidence presented demonstrates that KVSP officials did not ignore the arsenic levels 

in the water consumed by inmates and staff at KVSP. They instead investigated and made 

reasonable attempts to resolve the issue. Defendant Cate delegated responsibility and authority for 

the construction of an arsenic-removal plant at KVSP. (UDF 32.) Defendant Biter and his staff 

provided monthly water tests to the California Department of Public Health, posted quarterly 

notices required by the California Department of Health regarding the arsenic levels, and 

provided consumer confidence reports. (UDF 11-16.) Defendant Biter was not directly involved 

in the construction of the arsenic removal plant, and he generally deferred to the expertise of 

KVSP and correctional staff who would report back to him regarding the progress of the 

planning, design, and installation of the plant. (UDF 41, 46.) During the design phase for the 

arsenic-removal plant, the CDCR reviewed other arsenic-removal techniques to determine the 

type of facility that would be best for KVSP, including drilling new wells or installing point-ofuse filters, and connecting to the City of Delano’s water system, but these alternatives were not 

feasible given the appropriate considerations. (UDF 36-38.)

The evidence also supports the finding that Defendants Cate and Biter were not aware of 

any serious risk of harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838. Defendant Cate was advised that KVSP’s 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 14 of 16
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

15

water did not pose a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates or staff, including Plaintiff, and 

was never informed that an alternative water source was necessary. (UDF 39-40.) Defendant Biter 

was similarly advised and consulted with KVSP’s CME, who informed Biter that the water was 

not dangerous. (UDF 43-45.) The quarterly notices that were posted indicated the arsenic levels at 

KVSP did not present an emergency and there was no need to use an alternative water source. 

(UDF 12-13.) Ultimately, neither Cate nor Biter was ever informed that the water was dangerous 

or that they should provide an alternative source of water to prevent KVSP’s inmates and staff 

from being harmed. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, neither Defendant Cate nor 

Defendant Biter was aware that KVSP’s water presented a risk to Plaintiff and summary 

judgment in their favor is appropriate.3

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 53) be GRANTED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages

without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 

the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 

the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 

may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 

3 Because the Court has found that Defendants are entitled to judgment on the merits, the Court does not 

reach Defendants’ alternative argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 15 of 16
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

16

may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 

(9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 16 of 16