Fletcher v. Lomeli

Background

Gregory L. Fletcher, a state prisoner representing himself, sued Correctional Counselor I Brenda Lomeli, former Correctional Counselor I Garcia, Captain N. Gonzalez, and Sergeant R. Gomez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His claims concerned his transfer from the California Health Care Facility to Salinas Valley State Prison, his housing there, and an alleged November 30, 2017 assault that rendered him unconscious and damaged his right eye.

The court had previously found that Fletcher stated a legally recognizable Eighth Amendment safety claim against Garcia, Lomeli, Gonzalez, and Gomez. It had dismissed without prejudice his remaining retaliation claim, supervisory-liability claim against the warden, and claims against unnamed defendants.

Fletcher alleged that he repeatedly warned prison officials that his life was in danger because he was a Level II inmate housed at a Level IV facility. Records showed that a May 22, 2017 endorsement authorized his transfer to Salinas Valley State Prison through a double override to facilitate necessary enhanced outpatient mental-health treatment. The endorsement noted enemy concerns at one facility but stated that placement at another facility could be accommodated. Fletcher was placed in Facility D, later placed in administrative segregation after the November 30 assault, and transferred to the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility on December 8, 2017.

Motions and legal standards

The defendants moved for summary judgment and also moved to dismiss. They argued that Fletcher had only partially completed the available administrative grievance process, that the evidence did not show an Eighth Amendment violation, and that qualified immunity protected them from damages.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court considered the defendants’ evidence and treated Fletcher’s verified complaint and opposition as affidavits to the extent they were based on personal knowledge, stated specific facts, and contained admissible evidence.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court first asked whether the evidence showed a constitutional violation. For an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, a prisoner must show an objectively serious risk and that the official actually knew of and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable steps.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Fletcher did not provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference. As to Garcia and Gonzalez, Fletcher’s general statements that his life was in danger did not identify a possible attacker, describe threatening conduct, or provide other details showing that they knew of a substantial risk. The court also found that Garcia had responded to Fletcher’s concerns by providing the transfer endorsement and informing him that a classification hearing was scheduled.

As to Lomeli, the court treated Fletcher’s statements that she intentionally endangered him as conclusory and speculative. Fletcher’s account of statements allegedly made by Lomeli did not show that she disregarded a known threat to his safety. The court stated that the alleged assault, without evidence of deliberate indifference, could at most support negligence, which is not actionable under § 1983.

As to Gomez, the record showed that he investigated Fletcher’s safety concerns after the assault. Fletcher was placed in administrative segregation, appeared before a classification committee, and was transferred the next day. The court determined that Gomez’s investigation and conclusion that Fletcher was not truthful did not affect the decision to transfer him.

The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and held that the evidence did not show a violation of Fletcher’s Eighth Amendment rights. It therefore concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official in their situation could have believed that the conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It DENIED their motion to dismiss as moot. Because summary judgment based on qualified immunity resolved the claim, the court did not address the defendants’ alternative argument that Fletcher had only partially exhausted his administrative remedies. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the file.