Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01822/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01822-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

LMH

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Gonzalez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Terry L. Stewart, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-1822-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Raymond Gonzalez, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action

regarding conditions in Special Management Unit II, the highest custody level in the Arizona

Department of Corrections. Defendants filed a Second Motion for Summary Judgment on

the remaining claims (Doc. ##71-72). Plaintiff failed to respond, despite having been given

notice of his rights and obligation to respond (Doc. #74). The Court will grant summary

judgment in favor of Defendants.

I. Background

It is undisputed that Plaintiff was validated as a member of a Security Threat Group

known as the Surenos and, as a result, was placed in a maximum custody facility called

Special Management Unit II. In SMU II, the inmates are severely restricted in movement

and lack privileges granted to inmates at lower custody levels. Unhappy with his

circumstances, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit. The Court granted summary judgment in favor

of Defendants on a number of Plaintiff’s claims, but left open for decision the parts of Count

Case 2:02-cv-01822-DGC Document 77 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

II contending that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated by constant

illumination of his cell and by limitations on his ability to exercise (Doc. #55). 

Defendants filed a Second Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the

lighting and exercise opportunities do not violate the Eighth Amendment (Doc. #72). They

submitted additional evidence in support (Doc. #73). Plaintiff failed to respond to their

motion despite notification of his rights and obligation to do so (Doc. #74).

II. Summary Judgment Standard

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show that there is 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); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

When considering a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the non-movant is “to be

believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). These inferences are limited, however, “to those

upon which a reasonable jury might return a verdict.” Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co.,

68 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who, after

adequate time for discovery, fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

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

at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. Rule 56(e) compels the nonmoving party to “set forth

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” and not to “rest upon the mere

allegations or denials of [the party’s] pleading.” There is no issue for trial unless there is

sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. 

III. Count II: Conditions

A. Lighting

In Count II, Plaintiff claimed that the constant illumination in SMU II violates the

Eighth Amendment. Previously, the Court found that there was an issue of fact regarding

deliberate indifference by constant illumination, in part because Defendants offered no

Case 2:02-cv-01822-DGC Document 77 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

evidence regarding whether Plaintiff’s cell had been constantly illuminated or whether there

was a purpose for using constant lighting (Doc. #55 at 11-12). In their second motion,

Defendants submitted evidence that the amount of light emitted at night from security

lighting is comparable to a child’s nightlight (DSOF#2 ¶¶ 17 & Ex. 1, McWilliams Decl.

¶ 20, Doc. #72). There is also minimal lighting outside the cell (DSOF#2 ¶ 19 & Ex. 1,

McWilliams Decl. ¶ 22). 

The low level lighting occurs for six hours per night during the weekdays and 4 hours

on weekends (DSOF#2 ¶ 18 & Ex. 1, McWilliams Decl. ¶ 22). Its purpose is to allow the

officer to perform health and welfare checks on the inmates, which take three minutes to

check ten cells (DSOF#2 ¶¶ 20-21 & Ex. 1, McWilliams Decl. ¶¶ 23-25). Inmates may not

cover their faces, and the dimmed lighting is less disruptive to their sleep than using

flashlights (DSOF#2 ¶¶ 22, 26-28 & Ex. 1, McWilliams Decl. ¶¶ 25, 29-31).

Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ assertions. Given the unrebutted evidence

that dimmed lighting during nighttime hours is for the purpose of security and is minimally

intrusive, there is nothing to support an inference that the lighting resulted from deliberate

indifference on the part of the Defendants. They are entitled to summary judgment on this

claim.

B. Exercise

Plaintiff also alleged in Count II that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by

the lack of adequate opportunity for outdoor recreation. Each week Plaintiff is permitted

three hours of outdoor exercise in a recreation area that had cement floors and a steel grate

over the top (Doc. #55 at 13). The Court previously found that there was no bright line rule

that three hours of exercise per week violated the Eighth Amendment, and resolution of the

issue required “a deeper inquiry into this circumstance of Plaintiff’s imprisonment” (Id. at

13-15). The Court further found that there was a disputed issue of fact whether Defendants

were deliberately indifferent because Plaintiff presented no evidence about their purpose in

implementing this condition (Id.). 

Case 2:02-cv-01822-DGC Document 77 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

In their second motion for summary judgment, Defendants submitted evidence that

on December 12, 2005, the number of weekly hours for recreation doubled to three two-hour

sessions, for a total of six hours (DSOF#2 ¶ 2 & Ex. 1, McWilliams Decl. ¶ 5, Doc. #72).

The times are rotated to ensure exposure to the sun during different seasons of the year

(DSOF#2 ¶ 11 & Ex. 1, McWilliams Decl. ¶ 14). In addition, Plaintiff may wear prison

clothing in the recreation yard or purchase sweats and athletic shorts (DSOF#2 ¶ 6 & Ex. 1,

McWilliams Decl. ¶ 9). He can wear prison-issued sandals or canvas shoes, or purchase

athletic shoes from the commissary (Id.). He may also request to use a handball (DSOF#2

¶ 5 & McWilliams Decl. ¶ 7). The space is large enough – 23 feet by 11 feet – so that he

may do callisthenics and run (DSOF#2 ¶¶ 4, 7 & Ex. 1, McWilliams Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10). 

Defendants have submitted sufficient evidence to show that Plaintiff has meaningful

opportunities for outdoor recreation. Plaintiff has not rebutted this evidence, and has

submitted no evidence to show that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need for

outdoor recreation. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this

claim.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

#71) is granted. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-01822-DGC Document 77 Filed 08/23/06 Page 4 of 4