Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00383/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00383-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G. Biaggini
Defendant
Matthew Cate
Defendant
George Giurbino
Defendant
Anthony Hedgpeth
Defendant
Edy Ramirez
Plaintiff
N. Walker
Defendant

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDY RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-00383-WHO (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Edy Ramirez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleges that his jailors at Salinas Valley 

State Prison violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they suspended 

inmate privileges for a time. Defendants move for summary judgment (Docket No. 57)

with evidence explaining and justifying their conduct, and have provided Ramirez with the 

required warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 

banc). Ramirez did not file an opposition. Because there are no material facts in dispute, 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

I. Background

In the operative complaint (Docket No. 7), Ramirez alleged federal and state

constitutional claims against (1) Matthew Cate, the former head of the California 

Case 3:12-cv-00383-WHO Document 62 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and (2) his jailors at Salinas 

Valley State Prison, namely Anthony Hedgpeth, N. Walker, and G. Biaggini.1 The Court

previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ramirez’s state constitutional claims 

and the claims against Cate, and denied the motion concerning only the federal Eighth 

Amendment claims against the Salinas Valley jailors. (Docket No. 49.) 

The undisputed facts of this case, which were summarized in that order of 

dismissal, are repeated here. Ramirez has been held at Salinas Valley since March 2, 

2010. On January 11, 2011, two members of the Southern Hispanics gang attacked and 

wounded three correctional officers at Pelican Bay State Prison. Thinking this incident 

could spark similar attacks on staff in other prisons, the CDCR issued a state-wide order 

placing all Southern Hispanic inmates on a “modified program.” During a “modified 

program” inmates are denied access to outside exercise, telephones, the canteen, religious 

services, visits, packages, and the law library. The state-wide modified program was 

terminated two days later, but the CDCR directed prisons to make their own determination 

when to return to a “normal” program. Based on intelligence gathered by gang 

investigators, Salinas Valley continued a modified program on various Southern Hispanic 

inmates in certain housing units through July 7, 2011. Ramirez was affiliated with the 

Southern Hispanic “disruptive group.” 

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits 

demonstrate that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those 

which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

248 (1986). A dispute over a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a 

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

 

1

In his original complaint, Ramirez also named as a defendant George Giurbino, the 

Director of the Division of Adult Institutions of the CDCR. He omitted this defendant in 

his amended complaint. 

Case 3:12-cv-00383-WHO Document 62 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying 

those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of 

a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must 

affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the 

moving party. On an issue for which the opposing party by contrast will have the burden 

of proof at trial, as is the case here, the moving party need only point out “that there is an 

absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go 

beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court is 

concerned only with disputes over material facts and “[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant 

or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the 

court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 

F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of identifying, with 

reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the 

nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as 

a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (internal quotations omitted).

II. Claims

Ramirez alleges that prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison violated his 

Eighth Amendment rights when in 2011 they imposed, in response to threats to 

correctional staff and institutional security, a modified program during which inmate 

privileges were suspended, including access to outdoor exercise. Defendants move for 

summary judgment on grounds that suspending privileges was a reasonable response to 

threats to institutional security. 

Ramirez did not oppose the motion for summary judgment. That does not end the 

matter, because a district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment solely 

because the opposing party has failed to file an opposition. See Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 

Case 3:12-cv-00383-WHO Document 62 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

F.3d 1488, 1494-95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed motion may be granted only after 

court determines that there are no material issues of fact). This is so even if the failure to 

oppose violates a local rule. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 

2003). The Court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the 

movant’s papers are themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face 

reveal a genuine issue of material fact. See United States v. Real Property at Incline 

Village, 47 F.3d 1511, 1520 (9th Cir. 1995) (local rule cannot mandate automatic entry of 

judgment for moving party without consideration of whether motion and supporting papers 

satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 56), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Degen v. United States, 517 

U.S. 820 (1996); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (same).

 The evidence presented by defendants supports their motion for summary judgment. 

During January, February, March, April and May 2011, prison officials learned of many 

threats to staff and prison security. (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 7-12.) While 

investigations into these threats were pending, inmates were placed on a modified 

program. (Id.) The security threats “implicated hundreds of inmates and investigators 

repeatedly acquired evidence that necessitated new rounds of inmate interviews and cell 

searches.” (Id. at 12.) Limiting outdoor exercise aids in the investigation and quelling of 

inmate threats because it makes it more difficult for gang members to communicate with 

each other. (Id. at 14.) As investigations were completed, defendants took incremental 

steps toward restoring inmate privileges. Ramirez’s housing unit “did not begin the 

incremental release until June 9, 2011[ ] because of the heightened security concerns” 

there. (Id. at 15.) 

The evidence shows that defendants did not impose exercise (or other) restrictions 

wantonly. They acted reasonably in investigating threats and then took steps to restore 

exercise privileges when possible. Defendants’ evidence is sufficient to support the 

motion and does not on its face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. See, e.g., Hayes v. 

Garcia, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1207-08 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (nine-month suspension of 

outdoor exercise imposed in response to inmate violence did not violate the Eighth 

Case 3:12-cv-00383-WHO Document 62 Filed 02/03/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Amendment). Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in 

favor of all defendants as to all claims. 

CONCLUSION

 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 57) is GRANTED in 

favor of all defendants as to all claims. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of 

Matthew Cate, George Giurbino, Anthony Hedgpeth, G. Biaggini, and N. Walker, 

terminate Docket No. 57, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2015

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00383-WHO Document 62 Filed 02/03/15 Page 5 of 5