Opinion ID: 604458
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exposure to Unreasonable Risk of Harm

Text: 5 Initially, the family charges that there was no policy to separate the most dangerous Security Housing Unit (SHU) inmates from other SHU inmates, and the adequacy of the known enemy policy was a question of fact. As a result of these allegedly defective procedures, the family contends correctional officers acted with reckless disregard for Martinez's safety on the day of the shooting when they put him in the exercise yard with inmate Lomeli. According to the family, Lomeli previously attacked Martinez on two occasions, had a record for fighting, and was classified as a member of a rival prison gang. 6 A prisoner may state a section 1983 claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against prison authorities who act with deliberate indifference to the threat of serious harm or injury by another prisoner. Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir.1986). Deliberate indifference is evaluated in this context by considering whether, in allegedly exposing the prisoner to danger, the defendant prison officials were guided by considerations of safety to other inmates, whether the officials took prophylactic or preventive measures to protect the prisoner, and whether less dangerous alternatives were in fact available. Id. at 462 (citation omitted). Although the standard--deliberate indifference--does not require an express intent to punish on the part of prison officials, individual culpability must be present. Id. 7 According to the affidavit of Ted Pruit, Program Administrator at Corcoran State Prison, known enemies were not released into the same yard together in the SHU. In accordance with prison policy, as stated in California State Prison at Corcoran, Operational Procedure Number 421, Inmate Classification Plan, an inmate's known enemies were documented on form CDC 812, which was continuously updated to reflect the current situation. 8 Pruit's affidavit says that when inmates were involved in fist fights, a prison official would talk with the inmates separately to determine whether the inmates felt they could be in the same exercise yard together in the future. If either inmate indicated he could not go into the same exercise yard, a change was made to assure the inmates were no longer in the same yard at the same time and they would no longer have contact. If there were repeated fist fights between two inmates, prison policy was to separate them, and perhaps even document them as known enemies, regardless of whether the inmates believed they could continue in the same exercise yard. If inmates were involved in a fight in which serious injury occurred or a weapon was used, the staff would always separate them and document them as known enemies. 9 Martinez's CDC 812 form was updated on March 16, 1989, three weeks prior to the fatal shooting. Lomeli was not listed as a known enemy. Although Lomeli and Martinez had a fist fight on March 26, 1989, there was no evidence that either inmate indicated after that incident that they could not go in the same yard together. Pruit testified that based on the prison staff's prior experience with inmates involved in non-injury fist fights, and the fact that Martinez and Lomeli did not consider each other enemies, there was no reason to believe the two could not continue to exercise together. 10 Martinez was clearly the aggressor on the day of the shooting, which makes it difficult for his family to maintain this claim. There is no evidence to suggest, nor does the family allege, that Martinez sought and was denied protection from Lomeli. According to the evidence before the district court, a policy was in place to protect prisoners in the SHU from known enemies. Additionally, the evidence supports the determination that prison officials acted pursuant to policy in their handling of Martinez. According to the uncontroverted evidence, an allegation that officials acted with deliberate indifference when they released Martinez into the exercise yard with Lomeli cannot be sustained. Summary judgment was appropriate on this issue.