Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Tony Roberts, 

v. 

J. Beard et al., 

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

Case No. l 5cv 1044 WQH (RBM) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc.172) 

19 I. INTRODUCTION 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiff Tony Roberts, an inmate currently incarcerated at California Health 

Care Facility, has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against staff at the RJ Donovan 

Correctional Facility for violations of his First Amendment right to file grievances 

and for various violations of state law. (Doc. 1, at 3-4.) Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants R. Davis, A. Buenrostro, C. Meza, A. Parker, R. Solis, R. Santiago, and 

K. Seibel - all prison staff - retaliated against him for engaging in First 

1 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 37
1 Amendment conduct. 1 (Doc. 1, at 11-12.) Defendants have filed a motion for 

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 

summary judgment on the following grounds: 1) The undisputed evidence shows 

that Defendants did not retaliate against Plaintiff in violation of his First 

Amendment rights; 2) Plaintiffs state law claims do not create enforceable 

individual rights; and 3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.2 (Doc. 172-

1, at 19-24.) For the following reasons, the Court recommends granting in part and 

denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. 

II. ALLEGATIONS 

Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants conspired to retaliate against [him] for 

engaging in 'protected conduct' when [he] petitioned for redress of his grievances" 

between April and October 2014. (Doc. 1, at 19.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 

Davis and Buenrostro "engaged in a series of unlawful and repressive conduct 

against Plaintiff and other mentally ill inmates" when Plaintiff "attempted to access 

[RJ Donovan's] inmate appeal procedure to complain about these Defendants' 

conduct" which "were either screened out or were never responded to by [RJ 

Donovan's] prison officials." (Doc. 1, at 10.) Plaintiff states that after he wrote the 

1 Plaintiff also named the following people in his Complaint: Captain S. 

Sanchez, L. Ciborowski, D. Arguilez, D. Paramo, and J. Beard. However, Plaintiff 

never properly served these Defendants. See Judge William Q. Hayes's Order, Doc. 31. 

2 Defendants also argue that the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant 

Buenrostro should also be oismissed on summary judgment. (Doc. 172-1, at 6.) 

However, Judge Hayes already dismissed this Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendant Buenrostro on summary judgment on September 24, 2018. (Doc. 136, at 

6-8.) 

2 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 37
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 

"class monitors" of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's 

mental health delivery system, appointed under Coleman v. Brown et al., 28 F. 

Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2014), Plaintiff was retaliated against and 

terrorized by Defendants A. Buenrostro, R. Davis, C. Meza, A. Parker, R. Solis, R. 

Santiago, and K. Seibel for engaging in First Amendment conduct. (Doc. 1, at 10-

11.) 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants C. Meza and A. Buenrostro prohibited 

Plaintiffs ability to send written communications of public interest to government 

officials. (Doc. 1, at 19.) Plaintiff states that Defendant C. Meza "illegal[ly] 

obtained a copy of a written complaint Plaintiff had drafted and submitted" to the 

Department of Justice and gave the complaint to Defendant Buenrostro, who then 

concocted false allegations against Plaintiff in retaliation and arranged with other 

officers Plaintiffs transfer to another prison that caused Plaintiff "to experience an 

exacerbation in his mental illness." (Doc. 1, at 12.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants 

A. Parker and A. Buenrostro conducted a cell search on June 3, 2014 and 

confiscated legal documents from Plaintiff including a civil rights complaint that 

was about to be filed against Defendants Buenrostro and Meza for the April 2, 2014 

incident, in which Plaintiff was found guilty of "Openly Displaying Disrespect" to 

Defendant Buenrostro. (Doc. 1, at 20.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Buenrostro 

and Parker "concocted false disciplinary charges" against him, accusing him of 

3 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 37
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 

working with another prisoner to falsely accuse Defendant Buenrostro. (Doc. 1, at 

20-21.) 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Davis, Meza, and Buenrostro falsely labeled 

Plaintiff a "snitch," causing him to be attacked by other inmates, in retaliation for 

exercising his First Amendment rights. (Doc. 1, at 21-24.) Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Buenrostro told other prisoners that he was a child molester on 

September 29, 2014, in a "calculated effort to place Plaintiffs safety in danger from 

other inmates." (Doc. 1, at 23.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant K. Seibel, the deputy 

chief warden, conspired to retaliate against Plaintiff for filing grievances by 

authorizing the illegal activities of the other correctional officers under her and by 

placing him on a list for transfer to another CDCR facility in Stockton in September 

and October 2014. (Doc. 1, at 14-15, 23.) 

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Buenrostro conducted a clothed body 

search of Plaintiff on April 2, 2014 and intentionally rubbed Plaintiffs private parts 

for sexual gratification in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. 

(Doc. 1, at 11-12.) Plaintiff alleges that Buenrostro then wrote up a false and 

retaliatory rules violation report against him for exercising his constitutional rights. 

(Doc. 1, at 11.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Buenrostro later spoke to him in 

October 2014 and promised to "get some payback on your ass" and attempted to set 

Plaintiff up to be injured by other inmates. (Doc. 1, at 24.) 

Ill 

4 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 37
1 III. EVIDENCE PRESENTED 

2 

A. Defendants' Proffer 

3 

4 Defendants A. Buenrostro and C. Meza both declared that they did not take 

5 any adverse action against Plaintiff because Plaintiff corresponded with the "class 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

monitors" of CDCR's mental health delivery system, appointed under Coleman v. 

Brown et al., or for any other reason. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 2; Meza Deel.~ 3.) 

Defendants Buenrostro and Meza stated that they never refused to process 

Plaintiffs outgoing mail and that they never interfered with Plaintiffs outgoing or 

incoming mail. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 3; Meza Deel.~ 2.) Defendant Meza never 

confiscated or otherwise obtained any of Plaintiffs legal materials. (Meza Deel.~ 

4.) Defendants Buenrostro and Parker did not confiscate a civil rights lawsuit 

during a search of Plaintiffs cell on June 3, 2014. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 11; Parker 

Deel.~ 2.) 

Defendant Buenrostro was monitoring the inmates in Housing Unit A-1 on 

April 2, 2014. (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 3.) Defendant Buenrostro ordered Plaintiff to 

leave the housing unit and go to the dining hall for breakfast or return to his cell, 

but he stated that Plaintiff ignored his orders. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 3.) Defendant 

Buenrostro approached Plaintiff and again ordered Plaintiff to leave the housing 

unit or return to his cell and Plaintiff responded, "Don't worry about what I'm 

doing, stupid Mexican." (Buenrostro Deel.~ 3.) Defendant Buenrostro stated that 

he searched Plaintiff because Plaintiffs actions were suspicious and unusual. 

5 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 37
1 (Buenrostro Deel. if 4.) Defendant Buenrostro told Plaintiff that he was expected to 

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 

follow orders and procedures within the housing unit. (Buenrostro Deel. if 4.) 

Plaintiff was agitated and angry and responded, "Fuck you stupid Mexican. I'm 

going to do what I want to do." (Buenrostro Deel. if 4.) At that point, Defendant 

Buenrostro placed Plaintiff in handcuffs because of Plaintiff's unusual behavior and 

agitated state, and as a safety precaution, Plaintiff was escorted to the Program 

Support Unit. (Buenrostro Deel. if 4.) Defendant Buenrostro declared that he did not 

use excessive or improper force on Plaintiff at any time during the incident and 

clothed body search on April 2, 2014. (Buenrostro Deel. if 5.) Defendant Buenrostro 

stated that he did not sexually assault Plaintiff during that search and did not rub 

Plaintiff's private parts for sexual gratification. (Buenrostro Deel. if 5.) Defendant 

Buenrostro searched Plaintiff because his actions were suspicious, and Defendant 

Buenrostro knew that Plaintiff was not assigned to cell 210. (Buenrostro Deel. if 5.) 

Defendant Buenrostro also knew, based on his training, education, and personal 

experience within CDCR, that inmates often try to go to other cells for improper 

purposes such as delivering or obtaining contraband including drugs, weapons, 

currency, or electronic equipment or other property that is not theirs. (Buenrostro 

Deel. if 5.) This, and Plaintiff's agitated state, were the only reasons why Defendant 

Buenrostro performed a clothed body search of Plaintiff. (Buenrostro Deel. if 5.) 

Defendant Buenrostro wrote a 115 Rules Violation Report charging Plaintiff with 

behavior that leads to violence in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 

6 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 37
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, section 3005(d). (Buenrostro Deel.~ 6 and Exhibit A.) Defendant Buenrostro 

stated that he did not write this report in retaliation. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 6 and 

Exhibit A.) This Rules Violation Report was heard by a senior hearing officer, 

Correctional Lieutenant R. Davis, on May 1, 2014. (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 6 and 

Exhibit A thereto.) Lt. Davis found Plaintiff not guilty of behavior that leads to 

violence, but instead found him guilty of the lesser included offense of openly 

displaying disrespect in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, 

section 3004 (b). Lt. Davis's finding was based upon a preponderance of the 

evidence submitted at the hearing. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 6 and Exhibit A.) This 

evidence included Defendant Buenrostro's written report which stated in part that 

Plaintiff said "don't worry about what I'm doing stupid Mexican," and the 

testimony of Correctional Counselor Hailey, who told Lt. Davis that he heard 

Plaintiff call Defendant Buenrostro "a Mexican." (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 6 and Exhibit 

A.) Plaintiff was assessed thirty days forfeiture of good-time credits, thirty days 

loss of evening yard privileges, and thirty days loss of dayroom privileges. 

(Buenrostro Deel.~ 6 and Exhibit A.) This 115 Rules Violation Report's guilty 

finding has not been overturned by the CDCR. (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 6 and Exhibit 

A.) Defendant Davis, who made the guilty finding, has declared that he never 

participated in an "ongoing conspiracy to purposefully punish [Plaintiff] for 

exercising his right to file inmate grievances." (Davis Deel.~ 2.) 

7 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 37
1 Defendant Buenrostro never contacted Sergeant Sanchez to plot Plaintiffs 

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 

transfer to another prison, knowing that doing so would exacerbate Plaintiffs 

mental illness. (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 8.) Defendant Buenrostro did not have authority 

to have an inmate transferred, and he had no influence over the decision to transfer 

an inmate. (Buenrostro Deel. ir 8.) Defendant Buenrostro has never sat on any of 

Plaintiffs classification committees, and he has never acted as a Classification Staff 

Representative reviewing any action concerning Plaintiff. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 10.) 

Defendants Buenrostro and Parker did not "concoct" false disciplinary charges 

against Plaintiff. (Buenrostro Deel. ii 12; Parker Deel. ii 6.) Defendants Buenrostro 

and Parker were working as the Floor Officers in Housing Unit A-1 at RJ Donovan 

on June 3, 2014. (Buenrostro Deel. ii 13; Parker Deel.~ 2.) Defendants Buenrostro 

and Parker randomly chose to search Plaintiffs cell that day. (Buenrostro ii~ 13, 15; 

Parker Deel. if 2, 4.) Defendant Parker discovered a small, clear plastic bag lying on 

the lower-bunk mattress underneath a blue, state-issued jacket. (Buenrostro Deel. if 

13; Parker Deel.~ 2.) The bag was filled with tobacco. (Buenrostro Deel. if 13; 

Parker Deel. ii 2.) The lower bunk was assigned to Plaintiff at that time. 

(Buenrostro Deel. ii 13; Parker Deel. ii 2.) Defendant Parker took possession of the 

tobacco and disposed of it per institutional procedures. (Buenrostro Deel. ii 13; 

Parker Deel. if 2.) Defendant Parker did not "plant" the bag of tobacco on Plaintiffs 

bunk. (Parker Deel. ii 4.) Defendant Parker wrote a 115 Rules Violation Report 

charging Plaintiff with possession of contraband (tobacco) in violation of California 

8 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 37
1 Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3006. (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 14; Parker Deel. if 

2 

3 

3 and Exhibit A.) This Rules Violation Report was heard by a senior hearing 

4 officer, Correctional Lieutenant R. Davis, on July 2, 2014. (Buenrostro Deel. if 14; 

5 Parker Deel. ~ 3 and Exhibit A.) Lt. Davis ultimately found Plaintiff not guilty of 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

this charge and dismissed the rules violation report because of insufficient 

evidence. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 14; Parker Deel. ~ 3 and Exhibit A.) Defendants 

Buenrostro and Parker did not search Plaintiff's cell in retaliation for any protected 

conduct that Plaintiff may have engaged in or for any other improper reason. 

(Buenrostro Deel.~ 15; Parker Deel.~ 4.) Defendants Buenrostro and Parker 

searched Plaintiff's cell because they were required to perform three to five random 

cell searches during their shifts as floor officers. (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 15; Parker 

Deel.~ 4.) Defendant Parker did not conspire with Buenrostro, or any other 

correctional staff member or inmate, to file false disciplinary charges against 

Plaintiff, and no one ever asked or suggested that Parker do so. (Parker Deel.~ 6.) 

Defendants Buenrostro, Meza, and Santiago neither manufactured any charges 

against Plaintiff at any time, nor have they asked or pressured others to do so. 

(Buenrostro Deel. ~ 20; Meza Deel. ~ 6; Santiago Deel. ~ 2.) Defendant Buenrostro 

has never taken any adverse action against Plaintiff that was not based upon a 

legitimate, penological reason. (Buenrostro Deel. if 20.) Defendant Buenrostro 

never told Plaintiff that he would "get some payback" and never attempted to ,set up 

Plaintiff to be injured by other inmates. (Buenrostro Deel. ~ 22.) Defendant 

9 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 37
1 Buenrostro is not aware of any report or instance where Plaintiff was attacked by 

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 

other inmates from April through October 2014, and he is not aware of any reports 

evidencing such an attack. (Buenrostro Deel.~ 22.) Defendant Buenrostro has never 

threatened Plaintiff or bribed or caused another inmate to.assault, attack, or hurt 

Plaintiff. (Buenrostro Deel. if 22-24.) 

Defendant Seibel reviewed Plaintiffs transfer data on CDCR' s Strategic 

Offender Management System (SOMS). (Seibel Deel. ii 5.) SOMS contains data on 

each CDCR inmate's case factors. (Seibel Deel. ii 5.) The information in SOMS 

shows that Plaintiff was not placed on a transfer list in September and October 2014 

to be sent out ofRJ Donovan. (Seibel Deel.~ 6.) Defendant Seibel does not have 

unilateral authority to place an inmate on a transfer list. (Seibel Deel. if 6.) 

Plaintiffs records showed that RJ Donovan reviewed his case on February 18, 

2014. (Seibel Deel. if 8.) Plaintiffs case was referred to the Classification Staff 

Representative (CSR) with a recommendation that Plaintiff be retained at RJ 

Donovan. (Seibel Deel. ii 8 and Exhibit A.) The CSR endorsed the Unit 

Classification Committee's (UCC's) recommendation on March 26, 2014, and 

Plaintiff remained at RJ Donovan. (Seibel Deel. if 8 and Exhibit B thereto.) This 

ruling was upheld at Plaintiffs next UCC hearing on September 12, 2014. (Seibel 

Deel.~ 9 and Exhibit C.) Defendant Seibel never had any knowledge that others 

were planning to retaliate, or were retaliating, against Plaintiff at any time. (Seibel 

Deel. i! 10.) Defendants Seibel and R. Solis never took any adverse action against 

10 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 37
1 Plaintiff for any protected conducted that he may have engaged in, including 

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 

placing Plaintiffs name on a list for transfer out ofRJ Donovan. (Seibel Deel. ~3; 

Solis Deel.~ 3.) 

Defendants Seibel, Santiago, Solis, Meza, Davis, Buenrostro, and Parker never 

called Plaintiff a snitch or child molester at any time. (Seibel Deel. ~ 11; Santiago 

Deel.~ 5; Solis Deel. ,-i 5; Meza Deel. ,-i 5; Davis Deel. ,-i 3; Buenrostro Deel. if 21; 

and Parker Deel. ~ 7.) In addition to creating a threat of harm to the inmate and a 

security risk to the institution, any of the Defendants would have faced severe 

disciplinary action from their supervisors and the prison administration had they 

called any inmate a "snitch" or a "child molester." (Buenrostro Deel.~ 21.) 

B. Plaintiff's Proffer 

On April 2, 2014, Plaintiff placed a CDCR Inmate Appeal 602 dated April 2, 

2014 in Housing Unit# 1 Appeals box, alleging sexual assault by Correctional 

Officer A. Buenrostro. (Roberts Deel. if 3, Doc. 119, at 26.) Plaintiff declared that 

he never received a response from any prison official regarding the appeal. (Id.) 

On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 602 Appeal dated June 19, 2014 concerning 

senior CDCR administrators' intentional failure to control Officers D. Arguilez, A. 

Buenrostro, and R. Davis. (Roberts Deel. ,-i 4, Doc. 119, at 27.) Plaintiff declared 

that he never received a response addressing the appeal. (Id.) 

On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff gave Officer L. Ciborowski an appeal dated June 28, 

2014, alleging an ongoing conspiracy to retaliate against him. (Roberts Deel. if 5, 

11 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 37
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 

Doc. 119, at 27.) Plaintiff also submitted a CDCR Form 22 Inmate Request for 

Interview to Officer Ciborowski, who accepted it and signed it. (Id.) However, 

Plaintiff never received a response to the appeal. (Id.) Plaintiff stated that the 

administrative appeal submitted to Ciborowski on July 8, 2014 included sufficient 

detail to provide enough information to allow prison officials to take appropriate 

responsive measures. (Doc. 119, at 15.) Plaintiff declared that it has been his 

personal experience that RJ Donovan fails to operate an inmate appeal system that 

conforms to state law and places unreasonable restrictions on an inmate's ability to 

submit 602 appeals. (Roberts Deel. ~ 16; Doc. 119, at 31.) Plaintiff stated that he 

believes that his appeals either vanished or were unlawfully rejected. (Roberts Deel. 

~ 17, 23; Doc. 119, at31-33 .) 

Plaintiff declared that Officer A. Buenrostro, C. Meza, and R. Davis engaged 

in unlawful and repressive conduct against him as he attempted to access RJ 

Donovan's inmate appeal procedure to complain about the Defendants' conduct 

towards him. (Roberts Deel.~ 22, Doc. 119, at 33.) Plaintiff stated that Defendant 

A. Buenrostro and C. Meza illegally read and refused to process as outgoing mail a 

Coleman letter to class monitors on March 6, 2014. (Roberts Deel.~ 27, Doc. 119, 

at 34.) Plaintiff then concluded that as a result of his filing 602 appeals and other 

complaints, he was retaliated against by Defendant Buenrostro, including rubbing 

or touching his "male organ for the purpose of sexual gratification" during a "patdown search." (Roberts Deel.~ 31, Doc. 119, at 35.) Plaintiff stated that Defendant 

12 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 37
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 

Buenrostro issued him a false 115 Rules Violation Report for behavior that leads to 

violence arising out of the April 2, 2014 incident. (Roberts Deel. if 34, Doc. 119, at 

36.) Plaintiff declared that Defendant Buenrostro falsely accused him of having 

contraband during the search of his cell on June 3, 2014, an accusation for which he 

was found not guilty. (Roberts Deel.~ 45, Doc. 119, at 38.) Plaintiff declared that 

Defendants Buenrostro and Parker confiscated a motion for preliminary injunction 

with attached declarations during the cell search, which denied him the ability to 

support his allegations for a preliminary injunction. (Roberts Deel. ifif 42, 44, Doc. 

119, at 37-38.) Plaintiff declared that he was attacked by several black inmates on 

July 14, 2014 as a result of Defendant Davis labelling him a "snitch" to another 

inmate and paying "Black Street Gang members money to attack" him. (Roberts 

Deel.~ 53, Doc. 119, at 40.) 

Plaintiff also submitted his own declaration stating the following evidence: 

that Defendant Solis told another inmate that he heard that Roberts was going to be 

transferred and that, as a result, he was fearful that Defendant Solis was "going to 

cause me harm again because of filing 602' s or legal actions against RJDCF prison 

officials" (Roberts Deel. ifi-1 54-55, Doc. 119, at 40); that Defendant Ciborowski told 

him that he was going to be transferred and that Chief Deputy Warden Seibel "is 

tired of you with all these 602's" (Roberts Deel.~ 50, Doc. 119, at 39); and that 

inmate Billy Titus told him that he overheard Defendant Santiago telling Captain 

Sanchez that Roberts "had inmate Goldmas, CDCR # F-31549, injure himself in 

13 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 37
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 

order to set Officer Buenrostro up" (Roberts Deel.~ 49, Doc. 119, at 39). 

In addition to his own declaration, Plaintiff submitted the following inmate 

declarations: Inmate Juley Gordon stated that Defendant Buenrostro told him that 

anyone found helping Plaintiff file 602 appeals would be on his hit-list. (Gordon 

Deel.~ 7, Doc. 119, at 83.) Inmate Gerald Marshall declared that Defendant 

Buenrostro called Plaintiff Roberts a "snitch," told him the Crips "got off on his ass 

a couple of months ago on the yard," and told him not to help Plaintiff with his 

legal papers. (Marshall Deel.~ 1, Doc. 119, at 98.) Inmate Curtis Rusher declared 

that Defendant Buenrostro told him that Plaintiff was arrested for child molestation 

in the 1980s, offered to provide the documents showing that what he was saying 

was true, and expressed his desire to see Plaintiff "handled good enough to get him 

out of here!" (Rusher Deel.~ 2, Doc. 119, at 100.) Inmate Keith Williams declared 

that Defendant Buenrostro told him if he and his "homeboys" put Plaintiff "in the 

hospital this time," he would bring "anything you want in here." (Williams Deel.~ 

1, Doc. 119, at 103.) Inmate Kelvin Singleton declared that in July 2014, inmates 

who were West Coast Crip members said a correctional officer offered "five 

hundred dollars" to "fuck up an EOP inmate named Roberts ... for snitching on him 

and some other officers who had come on A yard from the hole." (Singleton Deel. ~ 

3-4, Doc. 119, at 110-111.) He stated that he heard from other inmates that Roberts 

was attacked during night yard. (Singleton Deel.~ 5, Doc. 119, at 111.) Inmate 

Lavale Jones declared that Defendant Solis told him that he would get "transferred 

14 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 37
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 

too" if he did not tell him which officers "Roberts is doing 602' s or legal 

paperwork against." (Jones Deel.~ 3, Doc. 119, at 77.) Inmate Mark Barbee 

declared that Defendant Davis told him that Roberts is a snitch because he "wrote a 

letter to the Warden and got a lot of investigations going against me and other 

officers." (Barbee Deel.~ 3, Doc. 119, at 89.) Inmate Russell Squires declared that 

Defendant Meza told him that Roberts was a snitch for writing 602 's against fellow 

correctional officers. (Squires Deel.~ 2, Doc. 119, at 95.) He also declared that 

Defendant Meza said that he refused to give him "disinfect, cell phones, lighters, 

tobacco ... until one of you guys put Bull in the hospital." (Id.) 

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the granting of 

summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 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." The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is 

essentially the same as for the granting of a directed verdict. Judgment must be 

entered, "if, under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as 

to the verdict." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). "If 

reasonable minds could differ," however, judgment should not be entered in favor 

of the moving party. Id. at 250-51. 

15 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 37
1 The parties bear the same substantive burden of proof as would apply at a trial 

2 

3 

on the merits, including plaintiffs burden to establish any element essential to his 

4 case. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252. The moving party bears the initial burden of 

5 identifying the elements of the claim in the pleadings, or other evidence, which the 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

moving party "believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material 

fact." Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "A material issue of fact is one 

that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties' 

differing versions of the truth." S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th 

Cir. 1982). More than a "metaphysical doubt" is required to establish a genuine 

issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 

U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish, beyond the 

pleadings, that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 4 77 U.S. at 324. To 

successfully rebut a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the 

nonmoving party "must point to some facts in the record that demonstrate a genuine 

issue of material fact and, with all reasonable inferences made in the plaintif:fI' s] 

favor, could convince a reasonable jury to find for the plaintif:fI]." Reese v. 

Jefferson School Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 738 (9th Cir. 2000). 

While the district court is "not required to comb the record to find some reason 

to deny a motion for summary judgment," Forsberg v. Pacific N.W. Bell Tel. Co., 

840 F .2d 1409, 1418 (9th Cir. 1988), the court may nevertheless exercise its 

16 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 37
1 discretion "in appropriate circumstances," to consider materials in the record which 

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 

are on file but not "specifically referred to." Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. 

Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the court need not "examine 

the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence 

is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could be 

conveniently found." Id. 

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court need not accept legal 

conclusions "in the form of factual allegations." Western Mining Council v. Watt, 

643 F .2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981 ). "No valid interest is served by withholding 

summary judgment on a complaint that wraps nonactionable conduct in a jacket 

woven of legal conclusions and hyperbole." Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201, 

1203 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, "[a] conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking 

detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue 

of material fact." F.T.C. v. Publ'g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th 

Cir. 1997). While "the district court may not disregard a piece of evidence at the 

summary stage solely based on its self-serving nature," Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & 

Co., 784 F .3 d 495, 497-498 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding plaintiff's "uncorroborated and 

self-serving declaration sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact 

because the "testimony was based on personal knowledge, legally relevant, and 

internally consistent"), "[t]he district court can disregard a self-serving declaration 

that states only conclusions and not facts that would be admissible evidence." Id. at 

17 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 37
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 

497 (citations omitted). "[T]he court must consider whether the evidence presented 

in the affidavits is of sufficient caliber and quantity to support a jury verdict for the 

nonmovant. A 'scintilla of evidence,' or evidence that is 'merely colorable' or 'not 

significantly probative,' is not sufficient to present a genuine issue as to a material 

fact." United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 

(9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). 

"A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment." Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th 

Cir. 2002). "We have repeatedly held that unauthorized documents cannot be 

considered in a motion for summary judgment." Id. "To survive summary 

judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that 

would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56." Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 

418-419 (9th Cir. 2001 ). 

V. DISCUSSION 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to establish a triable issue of material 

fact that Defendants R. Davis, A. Buenrostro, C. Meza, A. Parker, R. Solis, R. 

Santiago, and K. Seibel all retaliated against him for engaging in First Amendment 

conduct. (Doc. 172.) Defendants argue that the evidence shows that Defendants 

acted solely on the basis of legitimate penological interests and not in retaliation 

18 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 37
l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

against Plaintiff. (Doc. 172, at 20.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs state law 

claims do not contain a private right of action or other civil-enforcement 

mechanism. (Doc. 172-1, at 23.) Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to 

qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established 

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 

(Id.) 

In opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has 

submitted declarations from himself and from other inmates that only address the 

direct actions of Defendants Buenrostro, Meza, Davis, Parker, and Solis. (Doc. 

119.) Based on the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court makes the 

following recommendations: 

A. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintifrs First 

Amendment retaliation claims against R. Solis, R. Santiago, and K. 

Seibel. 

The fundamentals of a retaliation claim are easily summarized: "Within the 

prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 

elements: ( 1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an 

19 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 37
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 

F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th 

Cir. 2000)). It is the plaintiffs burden to prove each of these elements. Pratt v. 

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Under the first element, plaintiff need not prove that the alleged retaliatory 

action, in itself, violated a constitutional right. Id. (to prevail on a retaliation claim, 

plaintiff need not "establish an independent constitutional interest" was violated); 

see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholding jury 

determination of retaliation based on filing of a false rules violation report); Rizzo 

v. Dawson, 778 F .2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985) (transfer of prisoner to a different 

prison constituted adverse action for purposes of retaliation claim). The interest 

cognizable in a retaliation claim is the right to be free of conditions that would not 

have been imposed but for the alleged retaliatory motive. 

To prove the second element - retaliatory motive - plaintiff must show that 

his protected activities were a "substantial" or "motivating" factor behind the 

defendant's challenged conduct. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269, 1271 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Plaintiff must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant's 

alleged retaliatory motive; mere speculation is not sufficient. See McCollum v. 

CDCR, 647 F.3d 870, 882-83 (9th Cir. 2011); accord Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 

899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition to demonstrating defendant's knowledge of 

plaintiffs protected conduct, circumstantial evidence of motive may include: ( 1) 

proximity in time between the protected conduct and the alleged retaliation; (2) 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 37
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 

defendant's expressed opposition to the protected conduct; and (3) other evidence 

showing that defendant's reasons for the challenged action were false or pretextual. 

McCollum, 647 F.3d at 882. 

The third element concerns a prisoner's First Amendment right to access the 

courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). While prisoners have no 

freestanding right to a prison grievance process, see Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), "a prisoner's fundamental right of access to the courts 

hinges on his ability to acr;ess the prison grievance system." Bradley v. Hall, 64 

F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Shaw v. Murphy, 

532 U.S. 223, 230 n.2 (2001). Because filing administrative grievances and 

initiating civil litigation are protected activities, it is impermissible for prison 

officials to retaliate against prisoners for engaging in these activities. Rhodes, 408 

F.3d at 567-68. Protected speech also includes an inmate's statement of intent to 

pursue an administrative grievance or civil litigation. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 

1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567; Bruce v. Ylst, 351F.3d1283, 

1288 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Under the fourth element, plaintiff need not demonstrate a "total chilling of his 

First Amendment rights," only that defendant's challenged conduct "would chill or 

silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities." 

Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568-69 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Moreover, direct and tangible harm will support a retaliation claim even without 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 37
1 demonstration of a chilling effect on the further exercise of a prisoner's First 

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 

Amendment rights. Id. at 568 n.11. "[A] plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling 

effect may still state a claim ifhe alleges he suffered some other harm" as a 

retaliatory adverse action. Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269 (citing Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 

568 n.11). 

Regarding the fifth element, the Ninth Circuit has held that preserving 

institutional order, discipline, and security are legitimate penological goals that, if 

they provide the motivation for an official act taken, will defeat a claim of 

retaliation. Barnett v. Centoni, 31F.3d813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994); Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 

532. When considering this final factor, courts should '"afford appropriate 

deference and flexibility_' to prison officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate 

penological reasons for conduct alleged to be retaliatory." Pratt, 65 F .3d at 807 

(quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995)). Plaintiff bears the burden of 

pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for defendant's 

challenged conduct. Pratt, 65 F.3d at 806. A plaintiff must prove that the alleged 

retaliatory motive was the but-for cause of the challenged actions. Hartman v. 

Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 260 (2006). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence that 

Defendants K. Seibel, R. Solis,_ and R. Santiago retaliated against him for no valid 

penological reason while he was incarcerated at RJ Donovan. Defendant Seibel 

never had any knowledge that others were planning to retaliate, or were retaliating, 

22 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 37
1 against Plaintiff at any time. (Seibel Deel. if 10.) Defendants Seibel and R. Solis 

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 

never took any adverse action against Plaintiff for any protected conduct that he 

may have engaged in, including placing Plaintiffs name on a list for transfer out of 

RJ Donovan in September or October 2014; in fact, Plaintiff was recommended to 

be retained at RJ Donovan, and this recommendation was endorsed on March 26, 

2014 and again on September 12, 2014. (Seibel Deel. ifif 3, 8-9; Solis Deel. if 3.) 

Defendant Santiago never retaliated against Plaintiff for any reason or 

manufactured any charges against him. (Santiago Deel. ifif 2-3.) And Defendants 

Seibel, Santiago, and Solis never called Plaintiff a snitch or child molester at any 

time. (Seibel Deel. if 11; Santiago Deel. if 5; and Solis Deel. if 5.) 

The only evidence submitted by Plaintiff that remotely addresses the behavior 

of Defendants K. Seibel, R. Solis, and R. Santiago is the following: Inmate Lavale 

Jones declared that Defendant Solis told him that he would get "transferred too" if 

he did not tell him which officers "Roberts is doing 602's or legal paperwork 

against." (Jones Deel. if 3, Doc. 119, at 77.) Inmate Kelvin Singleton declared that 

in July 2014, inmates who were West Coast Crip members said a correctional 

officer offered "five hundred dollars" to "fuck up an EOP inmate named Roberts .. . 

for snitching on him and some other officers who had come on A yard from the 

hole." (Singleton Deel. if 3-5; Doc. 119, at 110-111.) He stated that he heard from 

other inmates that Roberts was attacked during night yard. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff 

submitted his own declaration stating the following: that Defendant Solis told 

23 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 37
1 another inmate that he heard that Roberts was going to be transferred and that, as a 

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 

result, he was fearful that Defendant Solis was "going to cause me harm again 

because of filing 602' s or legal actions against RJDCF prison officials" (Roberts 

Deel. irir 54-55); that Defendant Ciborowski told him that he was going to be 

transferred and that Chief Deputy Warden Seibel "is tired of you with all these 

602's" (Roberts Deel. ir 50); and that inmate Billy Titus told him that he overhead 

Defendant Santiago telling Captain Sanchez that Roberts "had inmate Goldrnas, 

CDCR # F-31549, injure himself in order to set Officer Buenrostro up." (Roberts 

Deel. if 49.) 

Despite this proffer, Plaintiff fails to convince the Court that he has submitted 

sufficient evidence establishing each of the five elements of a First Amendment 

retaliation claim as to Defendants Santiago, Seibel, or Solis. To begin, other than 

providing inadmissible hearsay statements, Plaintiff has not directly addressed the 

actions of Defendants Santiago or Seibel in his own declaration and has failed to 

submit any admissible evidence that Defendants Santiago or Seibel retaliated 

against him. With regard to Defendant Solis, although inmate Lavale Jones declared 

that Defendant Solis told him that he would get "transferred too" if he did not tell 

him which officers "Roberts is doing 602's or legal paperwork against" (Jones 

Deel. if 3, Doc. 119, at 77), the record shows that Plaintiff was recommended to be 

retained and remained at RJ Donovan in the fall of2014; moreover, other than 

offering hearsay statements and conclusory arguments, Plaintiff has failed to 

24 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 37
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 

specify with particularity the actual "harm" Defendant Solis committed against him 

specifically to chill his First Amendment rights. Because the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence of sufficient caliber or quantity to 

support a jury verdict in his favor as to the retaliation claims made against 

Defendants K. Seibel, R. Santiago, and R. Solis, the Court recommends that 

Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the retaliation claims against these 

three Defendants be granted. 

B. Some of Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation allegations against 

Defendants Parker, Meza, Davis, and Buenrostro survive summary 

judgment. 

In Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Defendants Parker, Meza, 

Davis, and Bue11rostro have submitted evidence that they did not retaliate against 

Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment. However, unlike the lack of evidence 

against the other three Defendants, Plaintiff has presented enough evidence that 

could support a jury verdict that Defendants Parker, Meza, Davis, and Buenrostro 

retaliated against Plaintiff for the sole purpose of chilling his First Amendment 

rights. 

Defendant Parker 

Defendant Parker declared that he did not confiscate a civil rights lawsuit 

during a search of Plaintiffs cell on June 3, 2014, that he did not '~concoct" false 

disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, that he did not "plant" a bag of tobacco on 

25 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 37
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 

Plaintiffs bunk, that he did not search Plaintiffs cell in retaliation for any protected 

conduct that Plaintiff may have engaged in or for any other improper reason, and 

that he did not conspire with Defendant Buenrostro, or any other correctional staff 

member or inmate, to file false disciplinary charges against Plaintiff. (Parker Deel. 

ilil 2, 4, and 6.) In his opposition papers, Plaintiff has provided the following 

evidence to support his First Amendment retaliation allegations: Plaintiff submitted 

his own declaration stating that Defendant Parker confiscated a motion for 

preliminary injunction with attached declarations during a cell search, which denied 

him the ability to support his allegations for a preliminary injunction. (Roberts 

Deel. ilil 42, 44, Doc. 119, at 37-38.) 

Defendant Meza 

Defendant Meza declared that he did not take any adverse action against 

Plaintiff because Plaintiff corresponded with the "class monitors" of CDCR' s 

mental health delivery system, that he never interfered with or refused to process 

Plaintiffs outgoing or incoming mail, that he never confiscated or otherwise 

obtained any of Plaintiffs legal materials, that he never manufactured any charges 

against Plaintiff at any time, and that he never called Plaintiff a snitch or child 

molester. (Meza Deel. iii! 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.) In his opposition papers, Plaintiff has 

provided the following evidence to support his First Amendment retaliation 

allegations: He submitted his own declaration stating that Defendant Meza refused 

to process as outgoing mail a Coleman letter to class monitors on March 6, 2014 as 

26 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 37
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 

officers and that he said that he refused to give him "disinfect, cell phones, lighters, 

tobacco ... until one of you guys put Bull in the hospital." (Squires Deel. if 2, Doc. 

119, at 95.) 

Defendant Davis 

Defendant Davis declared that he never participated in an "ongoing conspiracy 

to purposefully punish [Plaintiff] for exercising his right to file inmate grievances" 

and that he never called Plaintiff a snitch or child molester. (Davis Deel. ~ii 2-3.) In 

his opposition papers, Plaintiff has provided the following evidence to support his 

First Amendment retaliation allegations: Plaintiff submitted his own declaration 

stating that Defendant Davis engaged in unlawful and repressive conduct against 

him as he attempted to access RJ Donovan's inmate appeal procedure to complain 

about the Defendants' conduct towards him, including paying Black Street Gang 

members money to attack him, which occurred on July 14, 2014. (Roberts Deel. ifif 

22 and 53, Doc. 119, at 33, 40.) He also submitted the declaration of inmate Mark 

Barbee, who declared that Defendant Davis told him that Roberts is a snitch 

because he "wrote a letter to the Warden and got a lot of investigations going 

against me and other officers." (Barbee Deel.~ 3, Doc. 119, at 89.) 

27 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 37
1 Defendant Buenrostro 

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 

Defendant Buenrostro submitted a declaration stating that he did not take any 

adverse action against Plaintiff because Plaintiff corresponded with the "class 

monitors" of CDCR's mental health delivery system, that he did not interfere with 

or refuse to process Plaintiffs incoming or outgoing mail, and that he did not 

confiscate a civil rights lawsuit during a search of Plaintiffs cell on June 3, 2014. 

(Buenrostro Deel. ifif 2, 3, and 11.) Defendant Buenrostro stated that he did not 

"concoct" false disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, that he did not manufacture 

any charges against Plaintiff at any time or asked others to do so, and that he has 

never taken any adverse action against Plaintiff that was not based upon a 

legitimate, penological reason. (Buenrostro Deel. if~ 12, 20.) Defendant Buenrostro 

never told Plaintiff that he would "get some payback," never attempted to set up 

Plaintiff to be injured by other inmates, has never threatened Plaintiff or bribed or 

caused another inmate to assault, attack, or hurt Plaintiff, and has never called 

Plaintiff a snitch or child molester at any time. (Buenrostro Deel. if if 21-24.) Finally, 

Defendant Buenrostro stated that he conducted a clothed body search of Plaintiff 

for a valid penological reason, that he never plotted to transfer Plaintiff to another 

prison (which in any event did not happen in October 2014), and only searched 

Plaintiffs cell for valid penological reasons. (Buenrostro Deel. inf 5, 8, 13, and 15.) 

In his opposition papers, Plaintiff has provided the following evidence to 

support his First Amendment retaliation allegations: Plaintiff stated that Defendant 

28 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 37
l Buenrostro refused to process as outgoing mail a Coleman letter to class monitors 

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 

on March 6, 2014; that he was retaliated against by Defendant Buenrostro during a 

pat-down search ("sexual assault"); that Defendant Buenrostro falsely accused him 

of having contraband during the search of his cell on June 3, 2014; that Defendant 

Buenrostro told inmate Gerald Marshall that Plaintiff was a "snitch;" and that 

Defendant Buenrostro told inmate Curtis Rusher that Plaintiff was a "child 

molester." (Roberts Deel.~~ 27, 31, 45, 56-58, Doc. 119, at 34-35, 38, 41.) Plaintiff 

also submitted the following inmate declarations: Inmate Juley Gordon stated that 

Defendant Buenrostro told him that anyone found helping Plaintiff file 602 appeals 

would be on his hit-list (Gordon Deel.~ 7, Doc. 119, at 83); Inmate Gerald 

Marshall declared that Defendant Buenrostro called Plaintiff Roberts a "snitch," 

told him the Crips "got off on his ass a couple of months ago on the yard," and told 

him not to help Plaintiff with his legal papers (Marshall Deel. ~ 1, Doc. 119, at 98); 

Inmate Curtis Rusher declared that Defendant Buenrostro told him that Plaintiff 

was arrested for child molestation in the 1980s and expressed his desire to see 

Plaintiff"handled good enough to get him out of here!" (Rusher Deel.~ 2, Doc. 

119, at 100); and Inmate Keith Williams declared that Defendant Buenrostro told 

him if he and his "homeboys" put Plaintiff"in the hospital this time," he would 

bring "anything you want in here" (Williams Deel.~ 1, Doc. 119, at 103). 

Ill 

Ill 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 37
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 

Analysis 

While Plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient evidence demonstrating that a 

retaliatory motive to chill Plaintiffs First Amendment rights was the but-for cause 

of Defendant Buenrostro's clothed body search of Plaintiff, the searches of his cell 

for contraband, or Plaintiffs retention status at RJ Donovan, Plaintiff has 

demonstrated that there is a need for a trial to decide the following: 1) whether 

Defendant Parker confiscated his legal papers to deny him access to the courts; 2) 

whether Defendant Buenrostro labeled Plaintiff a snitch or a child molester in front 

of other inmates in order to chill Plaintiffs First Amendment rights; 3) whether 

Defendant Davis labeled Plaintiff a snitch to another inmate and engaged in 

retaliatory conduct including paying others to harm Plaintiff in order to chill 

Plaintiffs First Amendment rights; 4) whether Defendant Meza called Plaintiff a 

snitch in front of another inmate and made attempts to deter Plaintiffs First 

Amendment conduct; 5) whether Defendant Buenrostro recruited other inmates to 

harm Plaintiff in order to chill Plaintiffs First Amendment rights; and 6) whether 

Defendant Buenrostro refused to process his litigation mail or otherwise deterred 

Plaintiffs ability to pursue the legal process in order to chill Plaintiffs First 

Amendment rights. Viewing the facts in light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court 

concludes that by providing evidence that Defendant Parker confiscated his legal 

papers and that Defendants Buenrostro, Meza, and Davis referred to Plaintiff as a 

snitch in front of other inmates, put Plaintiff at potential risk of assault from other 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 37
3 

4 Parker's, Meza's, Davis's, and Buenrostro's actions chilled the exercise of his First 

5 Amendment rights for no valid penological reason. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Although defense counsel has raised the defense of qualified immunity which 

protects "government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their 

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 

which a reasonable person should have known," Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 

800, 818 (1982), "courts may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the 

party seeking summary judgment," and must, as in other cases, view the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 

1866 (2014 ). The inquiry of whether a constitutional right was clearly established 

must be undertaken in light of the "specific context" of the case and not as a broad 

general proposition. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (overruled on other 

grounds). The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly 

established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was 

unlawful in the situation he was in. Id. Whether the alleged adverse acts of 

harassment and intimidation taken by Defendants Parker, Davis, Meza, and 

Buenrostro would likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to 

exercise his First Amendment rights remains a question of fact, and thus the issue 

31 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 37
1 of qualified immunity with respect to Defendants Parker, Davis, Meza, and 

2 

3 

Buenrostro cannot now be decided as a matter of law. 

4 In sum, Defendants' motion for summary judgment of Plaintiffs First 

5 Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Parker, Davis, Meza, and 

6 

7 

Buenrostro should be denied. 

8 C. Plaintiff's state law claims do not survive summary judgment. 

9 In addition to his federal claims, Plaintiff has asserted state law claims under 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

California Penal Code§§ 2600, 2651, and 260l(b) (Doc. 1, at~~ 82-84) and under 

Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, §§ 3004, 3060(a), 3061, 3084. l(d), 

3084.2(f), 3130, 3133(e), 314l(c)(l), 3142, 3144, 3268.2 (c)(l), 3271, 329l(c), and 

I 

3401.5 (a )(3 )(E)(F)3 (Doc. 1, at~~ 84-95). Plaintiff has also asserted a general 

negligence claim against Defendant Seibel "for failing to institute measures to 

control subordinates and supervise" the correctional officer Defendants. (Doc. 1, at 

~ 96.) In their reply brief, Defendants make two arguments: 1) Plaintiff failed to 

produce evidence showing that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment 

on Plaintiffs state law claims; and 2) the state law provisions cited by Plaintiff do 

not contain any civil-enforcement provisions. (Doc. 175, at 3-5.) 

3 Plaintiff argues that "Defendant Buenrostro violated California law on April 

2, 2014 by committing sexual assault or battery upon Plaintiffs person." (Doc. 1, at 

28.) As CAL. CODE REGS. tit 15, § 3401.5 is a California prison regulation that 

addresses sexual misconduct by prison staff, the Court interprets Plaintiff's state 

law assault and battery claim as an alleged violation of this rule. 

32 

15cvl044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

 37
1 With regard to Plaintiff's alleged violations of the California Penal Code, 

2 

3 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim. See Logan v. Lonigro, 2013 WL 4049096, at *3 

4 (E.D. Cal. August 7, 2013). Plaintiff may not sue Defendants for violations of the 

5 Penal Code in federal court. Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F .3d 1183, 1189 (9th 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Cir. 1999) (finding the district court properly dismissed claims brought under 

various sections of the California Penal Code because those code sections did not 

create enforceable individual rights); see Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 

283-86 (2002) (basing a claim on an implied private right of action requires a 

showing that the statute both contains explicit rights creating terms and manifests 

an intent to create a private remedy); see also Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 

F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (no private right of action for violation of criminal 

statutes). 

With regard to Plaintiff's alleged violations of Title 15 of the California Code 

of Regulations, "[t]he Court is unaware of any authority for the proposition that 

there exists a private right of action available to Plaintiff for violation of Title 15 

regulations." Logan v. Lonigro, 2013 WL 4049096, at *3 (E.D. Cal. August 7, 

2013). Under California law, "[i]t is well settled that there is a private right of 

action to enforce a statute "only if the statutory language or legislative history 

affirmatively indicates such an intent. ... Particularly when regulatory statutes 

provide a comprehensive scheme for enforcement by an administrative agency, the 

courts ordinarily conclude that the Legislature intended the administrative remedy 

33 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 33 of

 37
1 to be exclusive unless the statutory language or legislative history clearly indicates 

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 

an intent to create a private right of action." Thurman v. Bayshore Transit 

Management, Inc., 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 130, 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (citations and 

internal quotations omitted). Under Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, 

the State of California provides its prisoners and parolees the right to appeal 

administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived 

by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." CAL CODE REGS. tit 15, § 

3084.l(a). A prisoner may even file appeals alleging violations of prison 

regulations by correctional officers. See id.§ 3084.l(e); see Houseman v. Padilla, 

2002 WL 1578860, at* 1 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2002). Because Title 15 provides an 

administrative remedy to enforce its provisions and the statutory language and 

legislatively history do not ~learly indicate an intent to create a private right of 

action to enforce Title 15 regulations in a court of law, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

has failed to state an enforceable claim in federal court under any of the provisions 

that he has cited under Title 15. Cf. Logan v. Lonigro, 2013 WL 4049096, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (no private right of action under California Government 

Code section 3000); Bailey v. Root, 2010 WL 2803950, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 

2010) (no private right of action for speedy-trial provisions of the California 

Constitution). Even if there were arguably a private right of action enforceable in a 

court of law under any of the regulations in Title 15, "[t]he district courts may 

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim" if it "raises a 

34 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 34 of

 37
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 

novel or complex issue of State law." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(l). On discretionary 

grounds, the Court recommends not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these 

arguably non-enforceable state law claims under Title 15 in federal court. 

Finally, with regard to Plaintiffs general negligence claim against Defendant 

Seibel "for failing to institute measures to control subordinates and supervise" the 

correctional officer Defendants (Doc. 1, at~ 96), Plaintiff has failed to submit any 

admissible evidence in the form of a declaration or other means supporting his 

allegation against Defendant Siebel, who has denied any wrongdoing. In her 

declaration, Seibel specifically states that she never conspired with any correctional 

staff member, inmate, or any other person to retaliate against Plaintiff or otherwise 

violate his civil rights and that she had no knowledge that any correctional staff 

member acted inappropriately toward Plaintiff or was retaliating against Plaintiff. 

(Seibel Deel.~ 4, Doc. 172-8, at 2.) She had no knowledge that any disciplinary 

charges filed against Plaintiff were false or fabricated, and she had not seen any 

such evidence. (Id.) Seibel' s declaration further illustrates the actions she took 

relative to Plaintiff and the efforts she made to ensure that all her actions relative to 

Plaintiff were proper. There is no evidence showing that Seibel breached any duty 

owed to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff does not submit any admissible evidence rebutting 

the evidence in Seibel's declaration. As such, summary judgment as to any 

negligence claim against Seibel is warranted. 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 35 of

 37
1 VI. CONCLUSIONS 

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 

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court recommends the following: 

1) that Defendants' summary judgment motion be granted as to Plaintiffs 

First Amendment claims against Defendants Solis, Santiago, and Seibel; 

2) that Defendants' summary judgment motion be denied as to Plaintiffs First 

Amendment claims against Defendants Parker, Davis, Meza, and 

Buenrostro; and 

3) that Defendants' summary judgment motion be granted as to all of 

Plaintiffs state law claims. 

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District 

Judge William Q. Hayes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party to this action may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties no later than February 14, 

2019. The document should be captioned "Objections to Report and 

Recommendation." 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's Order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 

36 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 36 of

 37
1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

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 

DATE: January 25, 2019 

~RO U.S. Magistrate Judge 

37 

15cv1044 WQH (RBM) 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 176 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 37 of

 37