Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02012/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02012-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO J. GARCIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2012 FCD CMK P

vs.

T. ROSARIO, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this civil rights action

against defendant S.B. Curry and against defendant J.C. Hartl. The case is before the undersigned

pursuant to Local Rule 302(c) for findings and recommendations on defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P 56(c). 

I. Standard of Review

On a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c), the court must 

accept the evidence of the non-moving party as true and draw all reasonable inferences of fact in

favor of the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating 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. See Celotex

Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 56(c)). If the moving party

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 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

2

meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish that a genuine issue

as to any material fact does actually exist. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. V. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The party opposing summary judgment may not rest on

conclusory allegations, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of

material fact. See Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 422 (9th Cir. 1978)(involving a pro se

litigant); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 586 n. 11. When the record taken as a whole could not

lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material

fact for trial. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 

On March 18, 2004, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a

motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

I. Background

Plaintiff is an inmate in the California state prison system, and, at all times relevant

to this complaint, was housed at California State Prison, Sacramento (CSP-Sac). Due to events

which occurred in August and September 2002, all Level IV inmates housed at Facility B at CSPSac were put on lock down. On October 1, 2002, the lock down began to be lifted. Among other

things, Hispanic inmates were escorted without handcuffs, groups of up to five inmates were

escorted by two correctional officers and Yard was normal for all prisoners, except Hispanics

who were to have Yard in the concrete mini-yards on B-Facility. During the lock down, personal

property, including packages from outside prison, were not distributed to inmates who were on

lock down. 

Plaintiff alleges that, on October 3, 2002, he was escorted by defendant

correctional officers Curry and Hartl to the B-Facility property room to pick up personal property. 

Along with plaintiff, defendants Curry and Hartl were escorting four other inmates. Defendants

Curry and Hartl received confirmation to escort the prisoners to the property room. The property

room was across the yard from plaintiff’s unit. Upon arriving at the property room, defendants

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 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

3

Curry and Hartl were told to go to the back of the line. After conferring with the Sergeant in the

watch tower, defendant Hartl decided to escort the prisoners back to their unit instead of waiting

at the property room. Defendants Curry and Hartl received confirmation from the central tower,

and began escorting plaintiff and the four other inmates across the yard and back to 6-block,

which was the inmates’ unit. 

While escorting the inmates across the yard, defendant Hartl noticed that the

inmates he was escorting started to run forward. Defendant Hartl observed inmates approaching

the escorted inmates from both sides. There were also inmates running past defendant Hartl from

behind. One of those inmates reached over defendant Hartl’s shoulder with a weapon, struck him

with his elbow, and spun defendant Hartl around. Defendant Curry ordered the inmates

approaching the escorted inmates to stop. Defendant Curry noticed one of the approaching

inmates had a large stabbing weapon. The inmates under escort were running toward the

approaching inmates. Defendant Curry grabbed defendant Hartl’s arm and said something about

getting out of the way. 

The officers in the central tower were announcing “down in the yard” over the public

address system, and shots were fired from the central tower and at least one control booth. 

Defendants Curry and Hartl did not use their personal alarms because personal alarms can only be

used inside prison buildings, and defendants Curry and Hartl were outside in the yard during the

incident.

While the shots were being fired from the central tower and control booth,

defendant Hartl stood out of the way. He then took out his pepper spray and joined another

officer who was trying to gain control of two inmates. On his way to join the other officer,

defendant Hartl pepper-sprayed two inmates, who were on the ground stabbing each other.

During the assault, everything happened very quickly. 

Plaintiff was stabbed and received multiple injuries during this altercation. He

states that defendants Curry and Hartl ran away, allowing plaintiff to be assaulted by other

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 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

4

inmates. In his opposition to defendants’ motion to summary judgement, plaintiff states that

 defendants “left the inmates and did nothing to prevent [the assault] until it was over... [when]

they ...placed restraints on all inmates involved.” (Resp. to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., 2:18-21.) He

alleges that defendants Curry and Hartl failed to protect him from assault in violation of the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff also appears to state a pendant state-law claim, an

equal protection claim and a Fifth Amendment claim. 

III. Discussion

Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff

cannot establish that defendants Hartl and Curry violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights. Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of prison inmates. 

See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1984). A prisoner may establish a claim under the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against prison officials when the officials acted with

“deliberate indifference” to the threat of serious harm or injury by another prisoner. See

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982). To show deliberate indifference, a

plaintiff must show that prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate

safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. In the context of prison officials responding to an outbreak

of violence, the “deliberate indifference” standard does not require that the guard believed to a

moral certainty that one inmate intended to attack another before that officer is obligated to take

steps to prevent that assault. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). 

However, the guard must have “more than a mere suspicion that an attack will occur.” Id. 

The court is mindful of the difficulties in evaluating prison decisions. See id. 

Protecting the safety of prison inmates and staff requires difficult decisions and offers no easy

solutions. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979). In situations where prison guards

respond to an outbreak of violence, the deliberate indifference standard “does not adequately

capture the importance of competing obligations or convey the appropriate hesitancy to critique in

hindsight decisions necessarily made in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 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

5

of a second chance.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986). 

Prison officials may avoid liability in suits claiming that they failed to ensure the

safety of prison inmates by presenting evidence that they lacked knowledge of the risk to the

prisoner’s safety. See Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187-88. Moreover, prison

officials may avoid liability by presenting evidence of a reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, response

to the risk. See id. at 844-45. 

Turning to plaintiff’s allegations, the court considers whether plaintiff has come

forward with any facts showing that defendants would have any reason to believe that he would

be attacked by other prisoners. In his complaint, plaintiff states that memos were circulating in

the prison stating that White and Mexican inmates were not to come into contact with each other

due to violence which occurred on August 22, 2002 and other incidents of ongoing tension. 

(Compl. Section IV, ¶ 1.) In his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

plaintiff states that the “Mexicans were locked down thus the necessity to be escorted.” (Opp’n to

def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 2:2-3.) Plaintiff has not shown that defendants were aware of any

specific threat of violence between Whites and Hispanics on October 3, 2002. Plaintiff fails to

show that defendants knew of any specific danger to plaintiff. Defendants’ evidence shows that

defendants were following proper procedures given that the lock down on Facility B Hispanic

inmates had begun to be lifted. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the

court cannot find that he has established a genuine issue of material fact as the liability of

defendants. See Mosher, 589 F.2d at 442. 

Even assuming arguendo that plaintiff had established that defendants had

knowledge of a risk to plaintiff’s safety, defendants have presented evidence that they acted

reasonably, albeit unsuccessfully, to respond to the danger to plaintiff. Defendants have

established that they choose to return plaintiff and the other inmates being escorted back to their

cells instead of allowing the inmates to wait in line at the property room and possibly come into

contact with other prisoners. Upon deciding to move plaintiff back to his cell, defendants notified

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 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

It is not clear from the language of plaintiff’s complaint whether he is alleging a pendant 1

state-law claim against defendants. However, the language of plaintiff’s complaint indicates that

he may be bringing such a claim. (Compl. Section IV, ¶¶ 7&8.) 

6

the central tower. Defendant officer Curry ordered the inmates who were approaching plaintiff

and the other escorted inmates to stop. Once the assault began, defendants stood back to allow

guards from the central tower and at least one control tower to fire shots into the yard. Once other

staff responded to the assault, defendant Hartl attempted to gain control of the situation by

spraying inmates with his pepper spray. Defendants restrained the inmates, ultimately handcuffed

the fighting inmates, and removed them from the yard. Defendants have presented evidence that

correctional officers are trained not to run into a prison melee until there is adequate staff to

control the situation. Officers are also required to stand back during an altercation to allow gun

towers a clear line to shoot tear gas, scat rounds, baton rounds, or even live ammunition if

warranted. Plaintiff has provided no evidence which establishes that defendants did not act

reasonably to respond to the danger to plaintiff. See Mosher, 589 F.2d at 442. 

The court finds that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s

claim that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s pendant state-law claim against them must be 1

dismissed because plaintiff did not follow California’s procedures for pursuing tort claims against

public employees. Before bringing a suit for damages against a public entity in California, a

plaintiff must present the claim to the appropriate public entity, which must have resolved it. See

Cal. Gov. Code §§ 911.2, 915, 954.4. Failure to comply with these requirements bars pendant

state-law claims in civil rights actions. See Karim-Panihi v Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d

621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants have demonstrated that plaintiff has not submitted a claim

regarding the October 3, 2002 incident. (Doc. 54-1.) Plaintiff makes no showing that he filed a

claim with the appropriate entity. Plaintiff’s state-law claims against defendants should be

dismissed. 

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 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

7

Defendants contend that plaintiff fails to allege an equal protection claim against

defendants. Plaintiff makes no attempt to link the October 3, 2002 assault with any equal

protection claim, apart from conclusory allegations. To plead an equal protection violation,

plaintiff must allege he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly

situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination. 

Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9 Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has failed to link his factual th

allegations to his legal claims. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against defendants should be dismissed. 

Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to allege a Fifth Amendment claim

against defendants. The due process rights of the Fifth Amendment were made applicable to the

states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus it is generally understood that the due process

clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the actions of the federal government. See Dusenbery v.

United States, 534 U.S. 161, 122 S.Ct. 649 (2002) . In any event, the rights set forth in the Fifth

Amendment substantially duplicate those set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly,

for the reasons discussed above, the court finds that defendants are entitled to summary judgment

on plaintiff’s claim that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated. 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety; and

2. Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 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

8

 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 10, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02012-FCD-CMK Document 60 Filed 05/11/06 Page 8 of 8