Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02769/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02769-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corrections Corporation of America
Defendant
Darin Jones
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 1Plaintiff filed his action pro se but has since retained counsel (Doc. 148).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darin Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Corrections Corporation of America,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2769-PHX-RCB (SPL)

O R D E R

 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 178) and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Non-Electronic Document (Doc. 188).

The Court will grant Defendant’s motion, deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot, and dismiss

the action with prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff Darin Jones is an inmate in the custody of the Alaska Department of

Corrections (ADC) (Doc. 179, Defs.’ Statement of Facts (DSOF) ¶ 1). In March 2010, he

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska (Doc. 3).1

 Plaintiff alleged various Eighth Amendment violations

by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) (Doc. 73-3; Doc. 96). In

December 2010, the case was transferred to the District of Arizona (Doc. 73).

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 29
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

The Court includes both the standard citation and the citation to the document and

page number in the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system.

- 2 -

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement at the Red Rock Correctional Center

(RRCC), a private facility in Eloy, Arizona, which is owned and operated by CCA and

which, during the relevant time, housed Alaskan inmates pursuant to a contract with the ADC

(Doc. 73-3; Doc. 179, DSOF ¶ 3). In his Complaint, Plaintiff set forth three counts alleging

failure to protect/threat to safety, three counts alleging deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs, and one count alleging denial of adequate sanitation (Doc. 73-3; Doc. 96). 

II. Facts

Plaintiff’s claims are based on an extensive factual scenario of events beginning in late

2008 and running through 2009 (Doc. 73-3 at 8-16, 18-19). The following disputed and

undisputed facts are derived from Plaintiff’s Complaint (id.), the parties’ separate Statements

of Facts (Doc. 179, DSOF; Doc. 181, Attach., Pl.’s Statement of Facts (PSOF)), and

Plaintiff’s affidavit (Doc. 183, Attach. (Doc. 183-1)2

).

In 2006, Plaintiff was transferred to the RRCC (DSOF ¶ 3; PSOF ¶ 3). Plaintiff states

that he was a member of a group that referred to itself as the Low Lifes, which was a group

of like-minded prisoners of different races who grouped together due to prison gangs (PSOF

¶ 4). Defendant states that Plaintiff was a verified member a security threat group called the

Low Lifes, which it describes as a white supremacy prison gang (DSOF ¶ 4). 

In November 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to Fox Unit, Echo Pod (DSOF ¶ 8; PSOF

¶ 8). On November 28, 2008, a Low Life member and a rival gang member got into a fight

(DSOF ¶ 9; PSOF ¶ 9). Two days later, in retaliation for the November 28 fight, a rival gang

member assaulted a different Low Life member (DSOF ¶ 10; PSOF ¶ 10). On December 2,

2008, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation for possible involvement in the

November 28 incident (DSOF ¶ 11; PSOF ¶ 11). Plaintiff states that he was not involved in

either of the two fights (PSOF ¶ 11). But when he was questioned about the assaults,

Plaintiff refused to say who was involved and that he could not tell on his friends or anyone

else because he did not want to be considered a rat (DSOF ¶ 12; PSOF ¶ 12; Doc. 183, Pl.

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 29
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 -

Aff. ¶ 6 (Doc. 183-1 at 2)).

Plaintiff was released from administrative segregation on December 26, 2008, and

placed in Fox Unit, Delta Pod (DSOF ¶ 13; PSOF ¶ 13). Defendant states that when Plaintiff

learned of this housing assignment, he told Chief of Unit Management Gina Sween that he

could not live there because he “would only get in trouble,” but he would not provide any

further details (DSOF ¶ 14). Plaintiff states that he was placed in a cell with an inmate

named “Psycho,” who Plaintiff states was an associate of a rival gang (PSOF ¶ 14). Upon

Plaintiff entering the Pod, a rival gang member—Halton—asked Plaintiff to come to his cell

(DSOF ¶ 15; PSOF ¶ 15). At that time, there were no issues between Plaintiff and Halton,

so Plaintiff went voluntarily into the cell; however, upon entering the cell, Plaintiff was

assaulted by Psycho and another rival gang member (DSOF ¶¶ 16-17; PSOF ¶¶ 16-17). After

the assault, Halton told Plaintiff to leave and not come back or “he would be pretty much

killed” (DSOF ¶ 19; PSOF ¶ 19). Plaintiff states that when he was beaten, there was no staff

in the Pod (Doc. 183, Pl. Aff. ¶ 10).

Defendant states that Plaintiff did not report this assault to staff (DSOF ¶ 20).

Plaintiff states that after the assault, he was covered in blood and immediately went to the

gate, and as he passed through the gate, Lieutenant Franco and Correctional Officer (CO)

Minor were coming in and questioned him for twenty minutes as to what happened, but

Plaintiff refused to identify the assailant (PSOF ¶ 20), and he refused to tell officers what

happened (DSOF ¶ 21; PSOF ¶ 21). Plaintiff was then placed back into administrative

segregation (DSOF ¶ 22; PSOF ¶ 22). 

Later on December 26, 2008, Plaintiff was examined by medical staff, and the parties

set forth numerous factual assertions and disputes over whether Plaintiff showed signs of rib

injury, whether he complained of rib pain, and whether facial injuries were obvious on his

face from the assault (DSOF ¶¶ 23-25; PSOF ¶¶ 23-25). 

On December 26, 2008, Plaintiff was found guilty of an infraction due to his

unwillingness to remain in Fox Unit (PSOF ¶ 26). On December 30, 2008, he told staff

member Anthony that he did not want to go back to Fox Unit because he was trying to stay

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 29
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 -

out of trouble and there would be trouble in Fox Unit (id.). While he was in segregation,

Plaintiff met with Unit Manager Booker to discuss his cell assignment (DSOF ¶ 27 (in part);

PSOF ¶ 27). Plaintiff told Booker that he did not want to go to Fox Unit and preferred to go

to Hotel Unit, but Booker told him that Hotel Unit was locked down so he could not go there;

Plaintiff said he could wait in segregation for another day (PSOF ¶ 28). Plaintiff states he

requested to go any where but Fox Unit because there would be trouble in that unit (id. ¶ 29),

but Plaintiff refused to elaborate on what he meant by “trouble” (DSOF ¶ 31). Defendant

states that due to Plaintiff’s security classification, housing instructions, and STG status, he

could be assigned only to Fox Unit (DSOF ¶ 28). Defendant states that there was no

indication that Plaintiff requested to be separated from any particular inmate in the Fox Unit

(DSOF ¶ 29). Plaintiff states he believed Booker already knew the situation since they had

investigated the assaults and separated the rival gang members, and Plaintiff did not want to

be labeled an informant (PSOF ¶ 31). The parties dispute whether Plaintiff informed Booker

that he had just been beaten up and had broken ribs, but they do not dispute that Plaintiff

would not name any prisoners involved (DSOF ¶ 32; PSOF ¶ 32). Booker asked Plaintiff if

he wanted to be placed in protective custody, but Plaintiff declined (DSOF ¶ 33; PSOF ¶ 33).

Plaintiff states that given what happened in Fox Unit due to rival gang activity, Booker was

required to involuntarily place Plaintiff in protective custody, but refused to do so (PSOF

¶ 33). 

Defendant states that Booker offered to place Plaintiff in Fox Unit, Bravo Pod and that

Plaintiff said he had no problem with that placement and even approved his cellmate (DSOF

¶¶ 34-35). Plaintiff, however, states that he did not want to go to Bravo Pod because there

would be trouble since all the other Low Lifes had been moved out of Fox Unit, and he states

he had no idea who his cell mate would be and did not approve any cell mate (PSOF ¶¶ 34-

35). 

Upon his release from administrative segregation on January 8, 2009, Plaintiff was

assigned to Bravo Pod in Fox Unit (DSOF ¶¶ 26, 36; PSOF ¶¶ 26 (in part), 36). He states

that when he arrived, there was no staff in the Unit (Doc. 183, Pl. Aff. ¶ 20). That same day,

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 29
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

 3Plaintiff has submitted a video compact disc (CD) of this altercation, which is the

subject of his Motion for Leave to File Non-Electronic Document (Doc. 188; see June 25,

2012 docket entry). That motion is addressed in the summary-judgement analysis.

 4

The parties present disputed factual assertions regarding treatment Plaintiff received

at the hospital, medication prescribed, and observations by medical staff (DSOF ¶ 44;

PSOF ¶¶ 43-44). Both parties rely on the affidavit of a physician who did not treat

Plaintiff but reviewed the medical records (Doc. 179, Ex. 8, Keith Ivens Aff. ¶¶ 4-5). As

set forth in the summary-judgment analysis, this affidavit testimony is inadmissible. 

- 5 -

Halton and another rival gang member, Mikell, walked into Bravo Pod (DSOF ¶ 37; PSOF

¶ 37). Plaintiff states that neither of these two inmates were assigned to Bravo Pod (PSOF

¶ 37). Plaintiff states that Halton had a weapon when he entered the Pod and Plaintiff

believed that they entered the Pod to attack him (PSOF ¶ 38). Defendant states that, without

provocation, Plaintiff lunged at Mikell and stabbed him in the stomach, puncturing his colon

(DSOF ¶ 38). Defendant states that Halton then confronted Plaintiff, at which time another

inmate struck Plaintiff in the back of the head with a “lock in a sock” (DSOF ¶¶ 39-40; PSOF

¶ 40). Defendant states that Halton and Plaintiff then fought; Plaintiff states he was trying

to defend himself (DSOF ¶ 41; PSOF ¶ 41). Plaintiff states that he was hit in the head

several times, knocked down, and taken into a cell (Doc. 183, Pl. Aff. ¶ 22).3

 

After the assault, both Plaintiff and Mikell were airlifted to the Maricopa Medical

Center (DSOF ¶ 42; PSOF ¶ 42). Plaintiff was treated for a skull fracture and an intracranial

hemorrhage and he underwent surgery (DSOF ¶ 43; PSOF ¶ 43).4

 Plaintiff was discharged

from the hospital on January 20, 2009, and returned to medical segregation at RRCC for five

days (DSOF ¶ 45 (in part); PSOF ¶ 45 (in part)). 

Plaintiff states that after his return, he began to suffer panic attacks and post-traumatic

stress disorder, and he was placed on medications that made his problems worse (Doc. 73-3

at 15). Plaintiff states that due to his psychiatric condition, he was tearing out his toe nails

to combat the pain in his head (Doc. 183, Pl. Aff. ¶ 32). He states that medical told him to

stop the medication, and, when he did, he cut himself and received 32 stitches in his arm

(Doc. 73-3 at 15). 

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 5 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

Plaintiff states that he was then placed in a “rubber room,” where he had only a hole

in the floor for a bathroom, no cleaning supplies, and no way to clean his arm (id. at 18).

Plaintiff states that he was kept in the rubber room for five days, that there was a grate over

the hole so there was no place to defecate without pushing the feces through the grate with

his fingers, and that his arm got infected and the stitches started coming out (id. at 13, 18;

PSOF ¶ 89). Defendant states that this room is the RRCC’s medical safe cell and that

Plaintiff was placed there on suicide precaution (DSOF ¶¶ 84-85). Defendant states that the

safe cell is padded with no furniture or fixtures and has an area in the ground for use to go

to the restroom, and that toilet paper is provided at the inmate’s request (id. ¶ 86).

On December 19, 2009, Plaintiff was moved out of RRCC, transferred back to Alaska,

and placed in a mental health unit (Doc. 179, , Ex. 1, Booker Aff. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4 (Doc. 179-1

at 3, 51); Doc. 73-3 at 19). 

III. Specific Counts

The Court has identified the following six counts against Defendant:

Counts I, III, and V-alleged deliberate indifference to a risk of harm by returning

Plaintiff to the unit where he and his friends had been attacked (Doc. 96). Specifically, in

Count I, Plaintiff alleges that his placement back in Fox Unit on December 26, 2008, after

he warned officials that there would be trouble if he went back to that unit, amounted to

deliberate indifference to a substantial risk to his safety and caused him to suffer injuries

from an attack by other inmates (see Doc. 73-3 at 8-12). He further alleges that his

placement back in Fox Unit on January 8, 2009—after he told them there would be problems

if he returned there and after the December 26, 2008 assault—constituted deliberate

indifference to a substantial risk of harm and caused him to suffer serious injury (id. at 10-

12). 

In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to a

substantial risk of serious harm when it placed him back in Fox Unit on January 8, 2009, and

that as a result, he now suffered severe post-traumatic stress disorder, seizures, and anxiety

(see id. at 14).

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 6 of 29
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

 5Defendant notes that it is uncertain exactly what Plaintiff alleges in Count V and

whether that Count remains in this lawsuit (Doc. 78 at 11 n. 8). The Court construes

Count V as supporting his claims in Counts I and III and specifically asserting

Defendant’s liability for the alleged failure to protect.

- 7 -

And in Count V, Plaintiff refers to his December 26, 2008 and January 8, 2009

placements and alleges that “this situation goes above inmate actions” because Defendant

was aware of the previous events and knew that Plaintiff would be in danger if housed in Fox

Unit, yet it nonetheless placed him there not once but twice, and both placements resulted

in injuries to Plaintiff (id. at 16).5

Count II–alleged deliberate indifference by failing to provide prescribed pain

medication for Plaintiff’s head injury that resulted from the January 8, 2009 altercation (id.

at 13). 

Count IV–alleged deliberate indifference by failing to treat Plaintiff’s mental health

issues (id. at 15).

Count VII–alleged failure to provide sanitation—namely, adequate restroom facilities

and a means to clean his stitches—and alleged deliberate indifference by failing to treat his

infected stitches (id. at 18-19; Doc. 96).

Defendant moves for summary judgment on all counts on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff

failed to exhaust administrative remedies for all but one of his claims as required under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); (2) Plaintiff cannot show that

a CCA policy or custom caused a constitutional deprivation; and (3) Plaintiff cannot prove

an underlying constitutional violation (Doc. 178).

IV. Exhaustion

Defendant’s first argument for summary judgment is that Plaintiff did not properly

exhaust remedies for all Counts except Count IV (id. at 6-8). Exhaustion is a matter in

abatement, which is properly raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss rather

than a motion for summary judgment. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003). To the extent that Defendant argues nonexhaustion, the motion will be construed as

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 7 of 29
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

 6Defendant initially argues that Plaintiff admitted that he failed to exhaust

administrative remedies; however, those admissions were withdrawn by the Court (Doc.

178 at 6; Doc. 186). 

- 8 -

an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss.

A. Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, an inmate must exhaust available administrative remedies before

bringing a federal action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119

(9th Cir. 2009). Exhaustion is required for all suits about prison or jail life, Porter v. Nussle,

534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), regardless of the type of relief offered through the administrative

process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). An inmate must complete the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules. See Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007).

Therefore, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. Because exhaustion is a matter in abatement in an unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide disputed issues of fact.

Id. at 1119-20. When doing so, a court has broad discretion as to the method to be used in

resolving the factual dispute. Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837

F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). 

B. Arguments

1. Defendant’s Motion6

Defendant submits the affidavit of Carl Richey, the RRCC Grievance Coordinator,

who describes the RRCC grievance procedure, which incorporates the requirements set forth

in ADC Policy 808.03—“Prisoner Rights” (Doc. 179, Ex. 11, Richey Aff. ¶¶ 2, 7-8, Ex. A).

First, inmates must try to resolve their issue informally by speaking with a staff member, and,

if that fails, they submit a Request for Interview Form (id. ¶ 15). If an issue remains

unresolved, an inmate must then file a Formal Grievance Form within 30 days of the incident

and attach copies of the informal staff response, if one was provided (id. ¶ 16). The Facility

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 8 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

Standards Officer (the Grievance Coordinator) logs the grievance and then screens it for any

deficiencies, i.e., non-grievable issues, untimeliness, incompleteness, factually incredible,

or devoid of merit (id. ¶ 17). If a Formal Grievance is screened out, the inmate can appeal

by filling out a Request for Interview Form and indicating why the screening was incorrect;

a copy of the Formal Grievance and the screening form must be attached (id. ¶ 18). The

Facility Standards Officer then records the appeal and forwards it to the Facility Manager,

who issues a written decision that constitutes the final administrative action for screened

grievances (id.).

If a Formal Grievance is not screened out, the complaint is investigated by an

objective staff member; those findings are forwarded to the Facility Manager; and the

Facility manager adopts or rejects the investigator’s recommendations (id. ¶ 19). Any healthcare complaints are investigated and determined by the Institutional Health Care Officer (id.).

If the inmate is not satisfied with the Formal Grievance determination, he must file

an appeal within 2 working days of receipt of the decision (id. ¶ 20). To appeal, the inmate

submits a Prisoner Grievance Appeal Statement, which must include all issues the inmates

wants resolved (id.). The Facility Standards Officer receives and records all appeals, then

forwards them to the Director, who either affirms or reverses the Facility Manager’s decision

(id. ¶¶ 20-21). 

If the inmate is not satisfied with the Director’s decision, he may submit a letter to the

Standards Administrator within 20 days of receipt of the decision (id. ¶ 21). The Standards

Administrator’s decision serves as the final administrative action for non-screened-out

grievances (id.).

If the Formal Grievance is a health-care complaint, the appeal is forwarded to the

Medical Advisory Committee, which investigates the complaint and issues a decision (id.

¶ 22). The Medical Advisory Committee’s decision is the final administrative action for

health care, non-screened-out grievances (id.). 

Richey states that when inmates arrive at the RRCC facility, they are provided a copy

of the Alaska Unit Prisoner Handbook, which contains a summary of the facility grievance

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 9 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

policies and procedures, and they are given a verbal explanation of the grievance procedures

during orientation (id.).

Richey avers that he reviewed the RRCC grievance log for the time relevant to

Plaintiff’s claims and states that based on that log, Plaintiff did not exhaust remedies for his

failure-to-protect claims in Counts I, III, and V; for his medical claims that he was denied

adequate pain medication following the January 8, 2009 incident and that he was denied

medical treatment for injuries sustained to his arm in October 2009, as set forth in Counts II

and VII; or for any claim that he was denied adequate sanitation or access to a restroom as

alleged in Count VII (id. ¶¶ 26-27). 

With respect to Counts I, III, and V, Richey states that Plaintiff filed a formal

Grievance on May 3, 2009; however, that Formal Grievance was screened out on May 6,

2009 because it was factually incredible or clearly devoid of merit (id. ¶ 28). Richey states

that the grievance log reflects that Plaintiff thereafter did not timely file an appeal of this

determination (id.). Richey explains that, instead, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Service

Form directly to the Warden on May 15, 2009, but did not attach a copy of the Formal

Grievance or the response thereto (id.). According to Richey, this form did not constitute an

appeal because it was not filed within 2 days of receipt of the grievance determination; it was

not properly filed on a Request for Interview Form; it did not attach the required grievance

documents; it was not submitted to Richey; and it included a new issues about legal copies,

which is not permitted on appeals (id.). For these reasons, Richey states that the Warden’s

response—which stated that there is an investigation being handled by the Eloy police

department—does not constitute a response to an appeal. 

Richey states that Plaintiff also filed a Formal Grievance regarding pain medication

for his head (Count II); however, when the grievance was denied and he appealed, Plaintiff

failed to include in his appeal the issue of pain medication for his head and instead raised

other issues pertaining to medication for anxiety (id. ¶ 29). Richey explains that, as a result,

the appeal does not constitute exhaustion of the claim in Count II (id.).

In its motion, Defendant relies on Richey’s affidavit to argue that Plaintiff failed to

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 10 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

properly exhaust administrative remedies for all claims except his mental-health claim in

Count IV (id. 178 at 8). 

2. Plaintiff’s Response

In response, Plaintiff acknowledges that he received a Prisoner Handbook when he

was transferred to RRCC (Doc. 181 at 9), but in his affidavit, he avers that he never received

a verbal explanation of any grievance procedures from RRCC staff, nor was he ever given

a Prisoner’s Handbook after he returned to the facility from the hospital (Doc. 181, Ex. A,

Pl. Aff. ¶ 27 (Doc. 181-3 at 8)). Plaintiff states that when he returned from the hospital, he

was not allowed any personal property in his cell, and he had difficulty speaking, reading,

and writing for months after the trauma to his brain (id.). He further states that he suffered

panic attacks, could not think clearly, and was extremely paranoid and frightened (id.). 

As to the grievance policy, Plaintiff asserts that the procedure provides that a prisoner

may go to the next level but does require that he do so (Doc. 181 at 9). Plaintiff argues that

the grievance procedure is additionally flawed because it allows persons whose actions are

being grieved to screen the grievance (id. at 8). He points to his May 3, 2009 Prisoner

Grievance form that grieved, among other things, the actions of Warden Clover (id.; Doc.

179, Ex. 11, Ex. B (Doc. 179-2 at 40)). Plaintiff states that Clover signed the screening form

and returned it as devoid of merit (Doc. 181 at 8; Doc. 179, Ex. 11, Ex. C (Doc. 179-2 at

46)). 

Plaintiff also avers that shortly after submitting the May 3, 2009 Prisoner Grievance

form, he was told by his jailers that the disciplinary board action against him must be

completed before he could file a grievance (Doc. 181, Ex. A, Pl. Aff. ¶ 26 (Doc. 181-3 at 8)).

He states that Unit Manager Booker and Correctional Counsels Mohn and Anthony told him

that the criminal investigation was ongoing and disciplinary board action was pending;

therefore, he needed to wait until those actions were completed (id.). 

Plaintiff contends that the special circumstances presented here—(1) his mental

injuries and mental state following a skull fracture and traumatic brain injury and (2) the

misleading statements made to him that he had to wait for completion of disciplinary action

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 11 of 29
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

 7Plaintiff subsequently filed a Notice of Filing of Signed Affidavit of Plaintiff and

Supplement Filing in support of his opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion;

this supplemental filing includes additional exhibits (Doc. 183, Exs. 1-3). Defendant asks

the Court to strike this supplemental filing on the grounds that is untimely and that the

Notice raises new arguments not presented in his response (Doc. 184 at 2). The Court

agrees that this filing is untimely and will therefore consider only Plaintiff’s signed

affidavit; the additional exhibits and any arguments raised in the Notice will not be

considered.

- 12 -

and police investigation—justify any failure to complete administrative remedies (Doc. 181

at 14).7

3. Defendant’s Reply

Defendant first argues that regardless of the permissive language in the grievance

policy, which states that an inmate “may” submit a grievance or appeal, the PLRA requires

inmates to exhaust all available administrative remedies; thus, Plaintiff was required to use

all steps in the grievance process (Doc. 184 at 2).

Defendant next argues that any claim that Plaintiff did not know how to follow the

grievance policy or was afraid to file grievances fails because Plaintiff filed dozens of

grievances regarding other issues in the months following the incident at issue in this case

(id. ast 3). Defendant also notes that Plaintiff filed grievances regarding his failure-to-protect

claim and his pain-medication claim, he just simply failed to properly appeal them even

though he properly exhausted his mental health care claim (id.). Defendant therefore

contends that Plaintiff obviously knew how to complete the grievance procedure (id.). 

Defendant asserts that, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, Warden Clover did not

screen the grievance that included a complaint about him; rather, that grievance was screened

and returned by Terry Hoover, whose affidavit is attached to the reply (id. at 3 and n. 3, Ex.

3). 

Finally, as to claims that he was told he couldn’t grieve his failure-to-protect claim

until investigations were completed, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to identify who

made those comments and he obviously disregarded them because he filed a grievance on

May 6, 2009 (id. at 3 and n. 3). 

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 12 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

C. Analysis

1. Counts I, III, and V-Failure to Protect

Initially, Defendant is correct that despite the permissive language in the grievance

policy, which provides that an inmate may proceed to the next level in the process, to comply

with the PLRA, an inmate is required to complete any available administrative remedies

before filing in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendant must demonstrate, however,

that there were remedies available to Plaintiff for his claims. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119;

see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2005). 

As to the failure-to-protect claims, Defendant does not argue the Plaintiff failed to

complete the initial steps in the grievance process—attempting to resolve the issue informally

and submitting a Request for Interview Form (see Doc. 179, Ex. 11, Richey Aff. ¶¶ 15, 28

(Doc. 179-2 at 21-24)). Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff submitted a Formal

Grievance; the copy of the Prisoner Grievance form reflects that it was filled out on May 3,

2009, and received on May 6, 2009 (Doc. 179, Ex. 11, Ex. B (Doc. 179-2 at 40-44)). In this

Prisoner Grievance, Plaintiff provides extensive detail about the events related to his failureto-protect claims (id., Ex. B (Doc. 179-2 at 40-44)). As mentioned, this Grievance was

“screened out” as devoid of merit (id., Ex. C (Doc. 179-2 at 46)). 

Pursuant to the grievance policy, the next step required Plaintiff to appeal the

screening determination by filing a Request for Interview Form with the Facility Standards

Officer (id., Ex.11, Richey, Aff. ¶ 18 (Doc. 179-2 at 22)). Instead, on May 15, 2009, Plaintiff

filed a Request for Service Form with the Warden, who informed Plaintiff that there is an

investigation currently being handled by the Eloy police department (id., Ex. D (Doc. 179-2

at 48). Defendant is correct that failing to comply with the procedural rules set out in its

grievance policy amounts to a failure to properly exhaust. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90.

But Plaintiff attests that shortly after he received the May 6, 2009 Prisoner Grievance

response (stating that it was devoid of merit), he was told he had to wait to file a grievance

(Doc. 184, Pl. Aff. ¶ 26 (Doc. 184-1 at 8-9)). Specifically, he states that Unit Manager

Booker and Correctional Counsels Mohn and Anthony told him he had to wait until the

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 13 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

pending disciplinary board matters and criminal investigation were completed (id.). In its

reply, Defendant does not dispute that there were pending disciplinary matters and an

ongoing criminal investigation. In addition, because Defendant incorrectly asserts that

Plaintiff failed to identify who told him that he had to wait to file a grievance, Defendant

proffers no sworn statements from Booker, Mohn, or Anthony disputing that they provided

this information to Plaintiff after he submitted his May 2009 Prisoner Grievance (see Doc.

184 at 3 n. 3). 

Exhaustion is not required “when circumstances render administrative remedies

‘effectively unavailable.’” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing

Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2010). Relevant evidence that relief

remains available to an inmate includes “information provided to the prisoner concerning the

operation of the grievance procedure . . . .” Brown, 422 F.3d at 937 (“information provided

the prisoner is pertinent because it informs our determination of whether relief was, as a

practical matter, ‘available’”) (quotation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has specifically held

that an inmate need not proceed in the grievance process if he has been reliably informed that

no remedies are available. Id. at 935 (holding that the prisoner-plaintiff could reasonably

have understood communication to him—that his complaint was partially granted, that an

investigation would be conducted, and that appropriate action would be taken if

necessary—to mean that no further relief was available through the appeals process). In

Brown, the Court relied in part on the Third Circuit’s holding in Brown v. Croak, which

found that exhaustion was excused where prison staff erroneously informed the inmate that

he must await the termination of an investigation before filing a grievance. Id. at 938 (citing

Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 111-12 (3d Cir. 2002)). 

The facts in the instant case are similar. Three officials told Plaintiff that he had to

wait to file a grievance until disciplinary proceedings and a criminal investigation were

completed, and it was reasonable for Plaintiff to rely on this information, whether or not it

was correct. And because Defendant does not address this issue, it is not clear when or if the

disciplinary matters and criminal investigation concluded prior to Plaintiff’s transfer out of

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 14 of 29
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 -

RRCC such that he could have proceeded to grieve his claims. The Court therefore finds that

Defendant has not met its burden to show that Plaintiff had an available remedy after Booker,

Mohn, and Anthony informed him that he had to wait to file a grievance. The request to

dismiss Counts I, III, and V for nonexhaustion will be denied. 

2. Counts II and VII-Medical Care for Physical Injuries

As stated, a medical complaint requires an inmate to attempt to informally resolve the

issue, submit a Request for Interview Form, submit a Formal Grievance, and then appeal any

screened out Formal Grievance or appeal the Formal Grievance determination to the Medical

Advisory Committee (Doc. 179, Ex. 11, Richey Aff. ¶¶ 15-16, 18, 20, 22 (Doc. 179-2 at 21-

23)). Defendant submits that there is no record that Plaintiff exhausted remedies with respect

to his medical care claim that he was denied adequate pain medication for his head following

surgery and denied treatment for an infection related to stitches on his arm (id. 26 (Doc. 179-

2 at 23)). Defendant provides the copy of a April 15, 209 Prisoner Grievance Form and the

May 28, 2009 appeal therefrom; however, Defendant states that these documents do not

relate to pain medication for Plaintiff’s head (id. ¶ 29, Exs. E-F (Doc. 179-2 at 25, 50-55)).

A review of these documents, however, shows that in his Prisoner Grievance, Plaintiff

complains that he is denied the medication “nerotten,” which appears to be the phonetic

spelling for Neurontin, and he explains that this was the medication that the hospital

physician prescribed after his brain surgery (id., Ex. E (Doc. 279-2 at 50)). Neurontin is a

neuropathic pain reliever. See Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2012)

(prisoner was prescribed Neurontin, “a neuropathic pain reliever,” to address hip pain and

degeneration). Plaintiff’s grievance also includes information about his problem with

“nerves,” and he believes that may be the reason medical will not give him the Neurontin,

and he adds that medication for his nerves is not working (Doc. 179, Ex. E (Doc. 279-2 at

50)). Although it also refers to Plaintiff’s mental health, this Prisoner Grievance specifically

alerted officials to the nature of his medical-care complaint—that he was denied prescribed

pain medication for his head injury after surgery. See Sapp, 623 F.3d at 824 (“[a] grievance

suffices to exhaust a claim if it puts the prison on adequate notice of the problem for which

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 15 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

the prisoner seeks redress”).

In the response to this Prisoner Grievance, Plaintiff was informed that medical staff

is treating him appropriately (Doc. 179, Ex. E (Doc. 179-2 at 51-52)). Plaintiff appealed this

response; he complained that he is not being treated appropriately, and that “if they w[]ere

treating me with regard to my conditions I would have some rel[ief] but they don[’]t . . . .”

Although the appeal proceeds to complain about Plaintiff’s panic disorder, he refers to more

than one condition, and the response from the Medical Review Committee did not reject the

appeal on the ground that it raised a new or different complaint from that raised in his

Prisoner Grievance; rather, the response refers to both mental-health care and medical

follow-up and appropriate medication (id., Ex. F (Doc. 179-2 at 55)). Therefore, although

Defendant construes this grievance and appeal as related solely to Plaintiff’s mental health

care, the face of these documents support exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claim regarding denial of

pain medication for his head after surgery. Plaintiff’s counsel did not make this argument

in the response; however, the Court will not ignore relevant documentary evidence in the

record for the mere expediency of disposing of a claim. Accordingly, the request to dismiss

Count II for nonexhaustion will be denied.

As to the medical-care claim in Count VII, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff did not file

a grievance related to his claim that he was denied medical treatment for an infection on his

arm, and none of submitted grievance documents pertain to such a claim (Doc. 179, Ex. 11,

Richey Aff. ¶ 27). The Court notes that, according to the record, Plaintiff’s injury occurred

in late October/early November 2009, and Plaintiff did not transfer out of RRCC until

December 19, 2009; thus, he remained housed at the facility during the 30 days in which he

was required to file a Formal Grievance (see Doc. 179, Ex. 4; Ex. 11, Richey Aff. ¶ 16 (Doc.

179-1 at 21, 51). Plaintiff does not dispute that he did not file any grievance regarding this

claim; instead, he attests that after suffering traumatic brain injury, he had difficulty reading

and writing and he suffered paranoia (Doc. 183, Pl. Aff. ¶ 27). But, as set forth above,

despite difficulties Plaintiff may have had following his surgery, he was able to navigate the

grievance procedure sufficiently to exhaust available remedies for his failure-to-protect

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 16 of 29
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

- 17 -

claims and his other medical-care claim, and it is not disputed that he properly exhausted his

claim concerning mental-health care. Consequently, Plaintiff’s general assertion that he was

unable to exhaust due his condition, absent any specific allegations regarding this particular

claim, is insufficient to overcome evidence that he was familiar with the grievance procedure

but failed to exhaust remedies for the claim in Count VII. The medical-care claim within

Count VII will be dismissed for nonexhaustion.

3. Count VII-Sanitation

Defendant submits that there is no record that Plaintiff filed any grievances pertaining

to claims that he was denied adequate sanitation or adequate restroom facilities while housed

in a medical safe cell (Doc. 179, Ex. 11, Richey Aff. ¶ 27). Again, Plaintiff does not dispute

that he filed no grievances for these claims; he relies on the same general assertions that after

surgery he had difficulties reading and writing and he suffered paranoia. For the reason set

forth above, this is insufficient to excuse exhaustion for these claims. Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss for failure to exhaust will therefore be granted as to all claims within Count VII,

and that Count will be dismissed. 

Accordingly, the remaining claims subject to the Motion for Summary Judgment are

Counts I, III, and V, alleging failure to protect; Count II, alleging denial of prescribed pain

medication following surgery; and Count IV, alleging denial of adequate mental-health care.

V. Summary Judgment Legal Standard

A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Under

summary judgment practice, the movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis

for its motion and identifying those portions of the record, together with affidavits, that it

believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S.

at 323.

If the movant fails to produce evidence that negates an essential element of the

nonmovant’s claim or defense or shows that the nonmovant does not have enough evidence

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 17 of 29
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

- 18 -

of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden at trial, the nonmovant need not produce

anything. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Co., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th

Cir. 2000). But if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and that the fact in contention

is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and

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

verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 250 (1986);

see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The

nonmovant need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First Nat’l

Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); however, it must “come

forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal citation omitted);

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

At summary judgment, the judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and

determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477

U.S. at 249. The evidence of the non-movant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences

are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. 

VI. Counts I, III, and V-Failure to Protect

A. Legal Standard 

The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide humane conditions of

confinement and to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). Failure to protect a prisoner from attacks by other

inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment only if

two requirements are met. First, the plaintiff must show that the deprivation is objectively

sufficiently serious, i.e., that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm. Id. at 834. Second,

the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that risk of

harm. Id. at 837. To act with deliberate indifference, the official must not only have been

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 18 of 29
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

 8All circuit courts that have the addressed the issue have held that the Monell rule

barring respondeat superior liability applies to defendants who are private entities

performing a government function. See Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1216

(10th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Ill. Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 766 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2002);

Burke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corrs. and Rehabilitation, 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2002);

Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 727-28 (4th Cir. 1999); Harvey v. Harvey,

949 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (11th Cir. 1992); Rojas v. Alexander’s Dep’t Store, 924 F.2d 406,

408-09 (2d Cir. 1990). Powell v. Shopko Laurel Co., 678 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1982).

- 19 -

harm existed, but must also have drawn that inference. Id.; Clouthier v. County of Contra

Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1242 (9th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, even prison officials who know

of a substantial risk to an inmate’s safety “may be found free from liability if they responded

reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.

With respect to Plaintiff’s claim, which is brought only against CCA, a showing that

he suffered a deprivation at the hands of prison employees does not, by itself, permit an

inference of Defendant’s culpability because there is no respondeat superior under § 1983.

See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).8

 Rather,

Defendant is liable only for deprivations pursuant to official custom or policy. Id. at 690-95

(1978); see City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989) (an entity “can be found liable

under 1983 only where the [entity] itself causes the constitutional violation at issue”). The

requisite elements of a § 1983 policy-based claim against an entity are: (1) the plaintiff was

deprived of a constitutional right; (2) the entity had a policy; (3) the policy amounted to

deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (4) the policy was the

moving force behind the constitutional violation. Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d

1101, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). An official policy may include decisions

by the director, acts of the policy-making officials, or practices “so persistent and widespread

as to practically have the force of law.” Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359

(2011).

An entity may also be liable if its failure to train employees amounts to deliberate

indifference. Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1249-50. If “the need for more or different training is

so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights,”

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 19 of 29
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

- 20 -

then the failure to provide proper training may be said to represent the entity’s policy, for

which it can be held liable if it causes injury. City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 390. 

B. Parties’ Contentions

1. Defendant’s Motion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot show that it is liable under Monell because he

has not alleged or shown that Defendant’s policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional

violations nor has he shown that a policy was the moving force behind any violation (Doc.

178 at 9). Defendant maintains that all of Plaintiff’s allegations are directed solely at CCA

employees, which is insufficient to support Defendant’s liability (id.).

Defendant proceeds to argue that Plaintiff fails to establish that there were any

underlying violations, which is required for entity liability (id. at 9-10). Defendant asserts

that Plaintiff claimed no involvement in the November 28 and 30, 2008 assaults, and he

refused to tell officials who was involved (id. at 10). Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff

concealed his December 26, 2008 assault—as assault that Plaintiff himself did not foresee

and voluntarily walked into (id.). According to Defendant, Plaintiff refused to tell staff what

had happened and he lied to medical about the origin of his rib injury (id.). As to the January

8, 2009 placement, Defendant contends that Plaintiff indicated only he did not want to be

assigned to a cell in Echo or Delta Pods, and that he agreed to placement in Bravo Pod (id.

at 10-11). Defendant notes that Plaintiff refused to explain what kind of “trouble” he could

be in, and he would not mention any specific inmates he did not want to be housed with (id.

T 11). For these reasons, Defendant argues that staff was not aware of a risk of harm, and

they nonetheless responded reasonably by offering him protective custody, which he denied

(id.). 

Lastly, Defendant states that Plaintiff initiated the assault on January 8, 2009, when

he stabbed Mikell, and another inmate’s actions were simply in response to Plaintiff’s assault

on Mikell (id.). Defendant contends that, as a result, Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim fails

as a matter of law (id.).

2. Plaintiff’s Response

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 20 of 29
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

- 21 -

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is liable under Monell because “[p]rison personnel

from CO’s to the Superintendent were involved in the deliberate indifference that occurred

when [Plaintiff] was placed in Fox Unit, not once but twice” (Doc. 181 at 15). Plaintiff states

that Defendant was fully aware of the threats between the Low Lifes and a rival gang as

evidenced by steps taken to separate them (id.). Plaintiff alleges that despite this knowledge,

they punished Plaintiff for not naming names and placed him back in a unit and pod among

rival gang members who had already executed three attacks on the Low Lifes (id.). Plaintiff

further asserts that Defendant also enhanced the likelihood of an assault by allowing

additional rival gang members who did not reside in the pod to enter with weapons, and then

failed to respond to the resulting assault for over ten minutes (id. at 13, 15). Plaintiff

maintains that these actions display deliberate indifference by Defendant to a substantial risk

of harm to Plaintiff (id. at 15).

3. Defendant’s Reply

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff still fails to submit any evidence that a policy

or custom was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations (Doc. 184 at 4).

Defendant states that Plaintiff merely relies on alleged actions by individual employees,

which cannot support liability as to Defendant (id.). 

Defendant points to those portions of Plaintiff’s response that Defendant contends

support that there was no underlying violation of the Eighth Amendment, including

Plaintiff’s admissions that he did not tell staff who was involved in the November 28, 2008

assault, he did not tell staff who assaulted him on December 26, 2008, he lied about his

injuries incurred on December 26, 2008, he refused to tell staff what he meant by “trouble,”

he refused protective custody, and he was the first aggressor on January 8, 2009 (id. at 4-5).

Defendant argues that with these admissions, it is hard to imagine how Defendant could have

had actual knowledge that Plaintiff would be assaulted if placed in Fox Unit on January 8,

2009 (id. at 5). 

Defendant asserts that there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant

was aware of the rift between the Low Lifes and a rival gang and that his affidavit statement

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 21 of 29
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

- 22 -

provides no factual foundation to support these claims (id. at 5-6). Defendant maintains that

Plaintiff cannot raise new alternative theories of liability at summary judgment; therefore,

the Court should not consider his new claims that Defendant violated his rights by allowing

rival gang members into the pod or that Defendant intentionally failed to stop the assault

once it began (id. at 6). According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s claim is limited to the allegation

that Defendant is liable for placing him in Fox Unit on January 8, 2009 (id.). 

C. Analysis 

As stated, to support his claim against Defendant as an entity, Plaintiff must first show

that he was deprived of a constitutional right. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1110-11. This requires the

Court to address the objective and subjective components of the Eighth Amendment inquiry.

However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff does not meet the other three elements

necessary to support his policy claim against Defendant, for the purposes of this analysis, it

will assume that there exists a genuine issue of material fact whether Plaintiff’s placement

in Fox Unit posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s safety.

Plaintiff is therefore required to show that Defendant had a policy and that action

pursuant to this policy caused his injury. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Mabe, 237 F.3d 1110-11.

“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents; it

must be founded upon practices of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the

conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out policy.” Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d

911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). An unwritten policy or custom must be so “persistent and

widespread” that it constitutes a “permanent and well settled” policy. Monell, 436 U.S. at

691. 

In Count V of his Complaint, which the Court construes as the Count alleging liability

against Defendant, Plaintiff alleges that despite his efforts, “CCA” put him in harm’s way

not once, but twice, and CCA “[k]new what would happen if they put me back in Fox unit,

and that my life would be in danger” (Doc. 73-3 at 16). In his summary-judgment response,

Plaintiff argues that he has made the requisite showing under Monell because “prison

personnel from CO’s to the Superintendent were involved” and because Defendant was

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 22 of 29
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

- 23 -

“fully aware” of the rift between the Low Lifes and a rival gang and took reasonable steps

to separate them, yet Defendant placed Plaintiff in a pod among rival gang members that had

previously attacked him (Doc. 181 at 15). Plaintiff further argues that Defendant not only

placed him in harm’s way, but also allowed rival gang member to enter the pod thereby

enhancing the prospects of a assault (id.).

The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege, much less submit evidence to show, that

his placement in Fox Unit was pursuant to an official policy established by Defendant. Nor

does he allege that Defendant has placed other inmates in similar conditions that pose a risk

of harm, thereby suggesting that Plaintiff’s experience was part of a practice or unofficial

custom at RRCC. In addition, there are no allegations that Defendant’s failure to properly

train employees reflected deliberate indifference or caused Plaintiff’s injury. See AE ex rel.

Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that previously,

to support a Monell claim, a plaintiff needed only a bare allegation that allegedly unlawful

conduct conformed to an unidentified policy or custom; however, it is now clear that

allegations may not simply recite elements of a cause of action but must include sufficient

allegations of underlying facts supporting the claim) (citing cases).

In Count I of the Complaint, which sets forth most of the specific facts supporting

Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claims, Plaintiff did not mention CCA or a policy or practice;

he alleges only specific acts and statements by individual employees (Doc. 73-3 at 8-12).

Unconstitutional discretionary actions of an employee, however, do not impose liability on

the entity under § 1983. See Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1347 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing

City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 126 (1988) (“[i]f the mere exercise of

discretion by an employee could give rise to a constitutional violation, the result would be

indistinguishable from respondeat superior liability”)). And nothing in the record, such as

affidavit testimony from Unit Manager Booker or Chief of Unit Management Gina Sween,

indicates that CCA employees were acting pursuant to a policy when they placed Plaintiff

in Fox Unit (see Doc. 179, Exs. 1, 3 (Doc. 179-1 at 3-5, 41-42)). Also, while entity liability

may exist where an injury is caused or ratified by an individual with “final policy-making

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 23 of 29
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

- 24 -

authority,” Plaintiff makes no claim, and the record does not support, that any of the

employees identified by Plaintiff exercised final policy-making authority for Defendant. See

Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center, 649 F.3d 1143, 1151 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Finally, Plaintiff specifically alleged that after he was assaulted on December 26,

2008, staff did not follow standard operating procedure, which required officers to check

hands or marks on inmates in the pod to determine who may have been involved in the

incident (id. at 9). Plaintiff also asserts that after the December 26 incident, Unit Manager

Booker was required to place Plaintiff in involuntary protective custody but failed to do so

(Doc. 183, Pl. Aff. ¶ 19). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim rests in part on employees’ noncompliance

with Defendant’s policies and practices.

In short, Plaintiff presents no allegations or evidence identifying a policy or custom

that caused a constitutional violation, much less that a policy established by Defendant

amounted to deliberate indifference and was the moving force behind the violation.

Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted on Plaintiff’s policy claim against

Defendant for alleged failure to protect, and Counts I, III, and V will be dismissed.

VII. Motion for Leave to File Non-Electronic Document

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a video CD of the January 8, 2009 altercation (Doc. 188).

See LRCiv 5.5(c) (requiring all documents to be electronically filed unless otherwise ordered

by the Court). The Court has reviewed the video and finds that it has no bearing on whether

a policy existed or whether that policy was deliberately indifferent to a risk of harm. Thus,

in light of its finding that Plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing under Monell to

support his policy claim against Defendant, the video need not be considered, and the Motion

for Leave to File Non-Electronic Document will be denied as moot.

VIII. Counts II and IV-Medical Care and Mental Health Care

A. Legal Standard

Under the Eighth Amendment standard, a prisoner must demonstrate “deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). First, a prisoner must show a “serious

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 24 of 29
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

- 25 -

medical need.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citations omitted). A “‘serious’ medical need exists

if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the

‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th

Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal citation omitted). 

Second, a prisoner must show that the defendant’s response to that need was

deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. The state of mind required for deliberate

indifference is subjective recklessness; however, “the standard is ‘less stringent in cases

involving a prisoner’s medical needs . . . because the State’s responsibility to provide inmates

with medical care ordinarily does not conflict with competing administrative concerns.’”

Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (quoting McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). To show deliberate

indifference, the prisoner “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was

medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and that the defendant “chose this course

in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90

F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). This second prong is met if the prisoner

demonstrates (1) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s medical need and

(2) harm caused by the indifference. Id. 

Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs if

they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment. Wood v. Housewright,

900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). But a delay in providing medical treatment does not

constitute an Eighth Amendment violation unless the delay was harmful. Hunt v. Dental

Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison

Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). And a difference of opinion as

to which medically acceptable course of treatment should be followed does not amount to

deliberate indifference. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Like his failure-to-protect claims discussed above, Plaintiff’s medical-care and

mental-health care claims are brought only against Defendant as an entity. Therefore,

Plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a constitutional right and that Defendant had a

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 25 of 29
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

- 26 -

policy that amounted to deliberate indifference and was the moving force behind the

violation. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1110-11.

B. Parties’ Contentions

1. Defendant’s Motion

Defendant argues that, like his failure-to-protect claims, Plaintiff’s medical claims fail

because he cannot make the requisite showing under Monell (Doc. 178 at 9).

Defendant next argues that Plaintiff was provided adequate and timely medical care

for his injuries (id. at 12-13). Defendant supports his motion with the affidavit of Dr. Keith

Ivens, a medical expert for Defendant (Doc. 179, Ex. 8, Ivens Aff. ¶ 3 (Doc. 179-1 at 63)).

With respect to the treatment for his head injury following surgery, Defendant submits that

Plaintiff claims only that he was given the wrong type or amount of medication and that this

amounts to a difference in medical opinion, which is insufficient to support his claim (Doc.

178 at 13). Defendant also notes that Plaintiff provides no expert medical testimony or

medical evidence (id.).

To support summary judgment on Plaintiff’s mental-health care claim, Defendant

proffers the affidavit of Dr. Ahktar Hamidi, another medical expert for Defendant (Doc. 179,

Ex. 11, Hamidi Aff. ¶ 3 (Doc. 179-2 at 57)). Defendant contends that Plaintiff was treated

for his anxiety and panic attacks, including treatment with various medications and monthly

monitoring by mental health personnel (Doc. 178 at 14). Defendant concludes that to the

extent Plaintiff claims he should have received other medication, it again represents merely

a difference of opinion and cannot support his claim (id.). 

2. Plaintiff’s Response

In response, Plaintiff disputes Dr. Ivens’ conclusion that the care he received was

adequate and met the standard of care (Doc. 181 at 10). Plaintiff avers that upon his release

from the hospital, Oxycodone was ordered for pain; however, Defendant did not provide him

the prescribed medication (Doc. 183, Pl. Aff. ¶ 23 (Doc. 183-1 at 8)). Plaintiff states that,

as a result, he suffered pain in his head and could not sleep (id. ¶¶ 31-32 (Doc. 183-1 at 10);

Doc. 181 at 7). 

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 26 of 29
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

 9Plaintiff also disputes that he was seen by mental health staff every month (Doc. 181

at 10). But it has been deemed admitted that Plaintiff was monitored or evaluated by

mental health personnel on a monthly basis (Doc. 186; Doc. 185, Ex. A, Admis. No. 22

(Doc. 185-1 at 6)).

- 27 -

As to his mental health treatment, although Plaintiff acknowledges that he received

some medication, he argues that some of the medications provided to him were inappropriate

for someone—like him—who had suffered a traumatic brain injury (id. at 10).9

 Plaintiff

asserts that the failure to treat his mental health condition resulted in him cutting himself and

pulling out his own toe nails (id. at 16). According to Plaintiff, had he received the proper

amount of correct medication, the pain in his head and resulting trauma could have been

avoided (id.). 

3. Defendant’s Reply

Defendant maintains that Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that he was denied proper

medications and adequate treatment are unsupported by any medical evidence or expert

testimony and, thus, cannot defeat summary judgment (Doc. 184 at 7). 

C. Analysis

Again, the first step in determining whether Defendant is liable as an entity for

constitutional violations related to medical care is examine whether was a constitutional

violation. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1110-11. There is no argument that Plaintiff’s head injury and

condition following surgery or his mental-health condition did not constitute serious medical

needs. Whether there was a constitutional violation therefore turns on Defendant’s response

to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 

The Court notes that in attempting to establish that there was no deliberate

indifference to either his head injury or his mental health needs, Defendant relies entirely on

affidavits from two expert physicians; yet, neither physician was involved in Plaintiff’s

treatment or had any personal contact with Plaintiff (Doc. 179, Ex. 8, Ivens Aff. ¶¶ 4-5 (Doc.

179-1 at 63-64); Ex. 12, Hamidi Aff. ¶¶ 4-5 (Doc. 179-2 at 57-58)). Their affidavit

testimony is based on a review of the pleadings; hospital records; and the medical file, mental

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 27 of 29
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

 10There is one medical record, dated December 26, 2008, submitted in Exhibit 6; this

medical record documents Plaintiff’s visit to medical after he complained of rib pain (Doc.

179, Ex. 6 (Doc 179-1 at 55-56)).

- 28 -

health records, and medication administrative record maintained for Plaintiff by RRCC (id.,

Ex. 8, Ivens Aff. ¶ 4 (Doc. 179-1 at 64); Ex. 12, Hamidi Aff. ¶ 4 (Doc. 179-2 at 57)).

Although a few of the paragraphs within the physicians’ affidavits cite to documents

identified by Bates numbers, none of those documents are attached to the affidavits, and there

are no attached medical records (see Doc. 179, Exs. 8, 12).10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(c)(1)(A) requires the movant to cite the particular parts of the materials that support its

factual assertions. The Advisory Committee Notes explain that under this provision,

“[m]aterials that are not yet in the record—including materials referred to in an affidavit or

declaration—must be placed in the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory comm. note, 2010

amendments (emphasis added). Because none of the medical records relied on by Drs. Ivens

and Hamidi are in the record, and because neither physician has any personal knowledge of

the care provided to Plaintiff, their affidavits will not be considered. As such, Defendant

presents no admissible evidence to show that the treatment for Plaintiff’s head injury and

mental health needs was not deliberately indifferent.

In turning to the three remaining elements necessary to support a Monell claim,

however, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the care he received was

pursuant to a policy, or that a policy governing health care was deliberately indifferent to his

health and was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. As with his failure-toprotect claims, Plaintiff does not allege that his medical and mental health treatment was in

accordance with a policy established by Defendant or that Defendant failed to properly train

medical and mental-health care staff (see Doc. 73-3 at 13, 15). Nor does he allege that the

denial of proper medication or treatment was common practice or part of pattern or custom

at RRCC to deny or delay care. Plaintiff’s summary judgment response also fails to set forth

any claim that the medical care provided to him was pursuant to policy or a result of

inadequate training. Plaintiff’s assertions that prescribed medication “was not provided to

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 28 of 29
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

- 29 -

[Plaintiff] by defendant” and that the “treatment provided to [Plaintiff] by defendant

constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs” are too general to support

a policy-based claim under Monell (Doc. 181 at 7, 16). See 436 U.S. at 691. 

For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted

on Plaintiff’s medical-care claim in Count II and mental-health-care claim in Count IV, and

the policy-based claims against Defendant in those Counts will be dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate is withdrawn as to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 178) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Non-Electronic

Document (Doc. 188).

(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 178) is granted as follows:

(a) the motion is granted as to Count VII, and this Count is dismissed without

prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

(b) the motion is granted as to the policy-based claims in Counts I-V, and these

Counts are dismissed with prejudice.

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Non-Electronic Document (Doc. 188) is

denied as moot.

(4) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and terminate the action.

DATED this 26th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02769-RCB Document 189 Filed 01/03/13 Page 29 of 29