Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00883/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00883-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Antolin Andrews,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 01-0883 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Mellie Briggs, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action against defendants Briggs, Moreno, Perez and

Felske.

Plaintiff claims he is a “flamboyant homosexual” and

defendants violated his constitutional rights when they

miscalculated his classification score and then deliberately

refused to correct the error, causing plaintiff to be sent to a

Level IV facility housing especially dangerous inmates where he

was assaulted and injured. 

Case 2:01-cv-00883-FCD-PAN Document 84 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 6
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

March 25, 2005, the court dismissed, for failure to state a

claim, all claims except that defendants violated plaintiff’s

rights under the Eighth Amendment. Now the court addresses

cross-motions for summary judgment. 

A party may move, without or without supporting affidavits,

for a summary judgment and the judgment sought shall be rendered

forthwith 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 a judgment

as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)-(c). 

An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the opposing party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A fact is

“material” if it affects the right to recover under applicable

substantive law. Id. The moving party must submit evidence that

establishes the existence of an element essential to that party’s

case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

The moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of

informing the district court of the basis for its motion and

identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any’” that the moving party believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.

at 323. If the movant does not bear the burden of proof on an

Case 2:01-cv-00883-FCD-PAN Document 84 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 6
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

issue, the movant need only point to the absence of evidence to

support the opponent’s burden. To avoid summary judgment on an

issue upon which the opponent bears the burden of proof, the

opponent must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits,

or by the “‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324. The opponent’s

affirmative evidence must be sufficiently probative that a jury

reasonably could decide the issue in favor of the opponent. 

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Inc. v. Zenith Radio

Corporation, 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). When the conduct alleged

is implausible, stronger evidence than otherwise required must be

presented to defeat summary judgment. Id. at 587.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) provides that “supporting and opposing

affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth

such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show

affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the

matters stated therein.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has

held that the opponent need not produce evidence in a form that

would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. 

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Rather, the questions are (1) whether

the evidence could be submitted in admissible form and (2) “if

reduced to admissible evidence” would it be sufficient to carry

the party’s burden at trial. Id., at 327. Thus, in Fraser v.

Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003), objection to the opposing

party’s reliance upon her diary upon the ground it was hearsay

Case 2:01-cv-00883-FCD-PAN Document 84 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 6
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

was overruled because the party could testify to all the relevant

portions from personal knowledge or read it into evidence as

recorded recollection.

A verified complaint based on personal knowledge setting

forth specific facts admissible in evidence is treated as an

affidavit. Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1995);

McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1987). A verified

motion based on personal knowledge in opposition to a summary

judgment motion setting forth facts that would be admissible in

evidence also functions as an affidavit. Johnson v. Meltzer, 134

F.,3d 1393 (9th Cir. 1998); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th

Cir. 2004). Defects in opposing affidavits may be waived if no

motion to strike or other objection is made. Scharf v. United

States Attorney General, 597 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1979)

(incompetent medical evidence).

The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from

deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to

a prisoner. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). “Deliberate

indifference” is a state of mind more blameworthy than mere

negligence. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986). The

defendant must know of but disregard an excessive risk of harm;

defendant must know the facts from which the inference of harm

should be drawn and also draw the inference. Id. Failure to

abate a risk that should have been perceived but was not does not

violate the Eighth Amendment. Id. Plaintiff is required to

establish not only that defendants were deliberately indifferent

Case 2:01-cv-00883-FCD-PAN Document 84 Filed 07/22/05 Page 4 of 6
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

to “a risk of some harm,” but rather to “a substantial risk of

serious harm.” Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2002). 

It is undisputed that after plaintiff was transferred to

Folsom he was attacked by inmate Hunt. The attack had nothing to

do with the fact that plaintiff is a flamboyant homosexual, which

is the special circumstance that arguably placed plaintiff at

“substantial risk of serious harm,” as required for a

constitutional violation under Farmer. Plaintiff posits that he

was attacked as punishment for plaintiff’s failure to participate

in racial violence on a previous occasion. See plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment at 33; plaintiff’s declaration in

reply to cross-motion for summary judgment paras. 48-65. Because

there is nothing to support any inference the attack stemmed from

plaintiff’s sexual orientation, defendants’ actions were not the

proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. See Arnold v. Int’l

Business Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981)

(civil rights statute requires a showing defendant, acting under

color of state law, proximately caused the violation of

plaintiff’s constitutional rights); see also Van Ort v. Estate of

Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 1996) (state action concept and

causation analysis are intertwined). Although defendants’

conduct may have been a cause in fact of plaintiff’s injury, they

had no control over the intervening events surrounding the

assault and their actions did not fail to prevent it. See

Arnold, 637 F.2d at 1356-57. Defendants therefore are entitled

Case 2:01-cv-00883-FCD-PAN Document 84 Filed 07/22/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment (deemed filed December 6, 2004) be

denied and defendants’ May 3, 2005, cross-motion for summary

judgment be granted. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 10 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, either party may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: July 21, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-00883-FCD-PAN Document 84 Filed 07/22/05 Page 6 of 6