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

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING ON CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL RIDEAUX, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. C05-2100-RSL-JPD

)

v. )

)

REED HOLTGEERTS, et al., ) ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

) BRIEFING ON CROSS-MOTIONS

Defendants. ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

____________________________________)

This is a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before this

Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court has carefully reviewed the

pending motions and, based upon that review, concludes that there is a need for supplemental

briefing in this matter. 

Plaintiff asserts in his complaint that because of classification policies at the King County

Regional Justice Center (“RJC”), protective custody inmates, such as himself, are forced to live in the

administrative segregation unit of the RJC with inmates who are housed there for behavioral or

disciplinary reasons. Plaintiff contends that because of this intermixing of various classifications of

inmates, protective custody inmates are forced to live in isolation and are subjected to “punishment”

rules. Plaintiff cites to a number of specific disabilities associated with his placement in the

administrative segregation unit.

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 39 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 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

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING ON CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

Defendants, in response to plaintiff’s allegations regarding the restrictions and conditions he

is subject to in the administrative segregation housing unit, argue that plaintiff cannot sustain a claim

under the Fourteenth Amendment because he has not been deprived of any necessities as a result of

his confinement in that unit. This, however, is not the applicable standard. As explained by the

Ninth Circuit in Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004), “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires

the government to do more than provide the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities for nonconvicted detainees. Rather, due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear

some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” Id. at 931 (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

At a bare minimum, a pretrial detainee cannot be subjected to conditions that “amount to

punishment.” Id. at 932 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 (1979)). The Ninth Circuit has

recognized, in accordance with Bell, that the test to be applied in determining whether particular

restrictions and conditions imposed as a result of pretrial detention amount to punishment in the

constitutional sense is whether there was an express intent to punish, or “whether an alternative

purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it

appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to it].” Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d

1090 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 538). 

Because plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, and because he alleges that he is subject to conditions in

protective custody which essentially amount to punishment, the Court deems it appropriate to obtain

additional briefing from the parties which addresses plaintiff’s claims under the proper standard. 

Accordingly, the Court does hereby ORDER as follows:

(1) Defendants shall file and serve, not later than April 9, 2007, a supplement to their

response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment in

which they address plaintiff’s claims under the standard applicable to claims of a pre-trial detainee. 

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 39 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 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

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING ON CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

Defendants’ supplemental brief should, of course, be accompanied by any evidence necessary to

support their arguments. 

(2) Plaintiff may file and serve a supplemental response/reply brief not later than April 12,

2007. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief shall be limited to only those issues argued by defendants in their

supplemental brief.

(3) The parties’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 17 and 27) are RE-NOTED on

the Court’s calendar for consideration on April 13, 2007. 

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

defendants, and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2007.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 39 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3