Rhey v. Voong

Background

Choon Rhey, a California prisoner, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining claims were Eighth Amendment claims against Officers B. Dutton and B. Haub concerning an attempt to assign Rhey a cellmate and the issuance of a disciplinary citation after Rhey refused the assignment.

Rhey had severe sleep apnea, including loud snoring, nighttime choking, interrupted sleep, and difficulty breathing. He used a continuous positive airway pressure machine, which sometimes malfunctioned. He also described several physical impairments and said that past cellmates had complained about his condition, the machine, and the noise. Rhey alleged that he had experienced violence from past cellmates and that the violence stopped when he was housed alone.

Prison regulations generally required inmates to share cells unless specific factors prevented double-celling. A classification committee had denied Rhey’s request for single-cell status, and that decision had been upheld through three levels of administrative review.

On August 10, 2016, Rhey refused to accept an assigned cellmate. The assigned inmate was housed elsewhere, and Rhey continued to occupy his cell alone. Officers prepared a disciplinary citation, and a hearing was held on August 30, 2016. Rhey was found guilty of violating prison rules by refusing a cellmate without single-cell status. He remained housed alone until he moved to another housing unit on November 16, 2016.

Summary judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed any conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to Rhey, the nonmoving party.

To prove an Eighth Amendment violation based on prison conditions, a prisoner must show an objectively serious deprivation and that the official acted with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference means that the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm; negligence or gross negligence is not enough.

The court held that Dutton and Haub were not deliberately indifferent. The officers reasonably relied on the classification committee’s investigation and the administrative decisions concluding that Rhey was suitable for double-celling. Dutton informed Rhey that he did not have single-cell status, processed the disciplinary citation, and arranged a hearing. Haub conducted the hearing, allowed Rhey to present his position and evidence, questioned him about his safety concerns, and offered special housing for inmates with safety concerns. Rhey rejected that offer and indicated that he was not concerned about his safety from anyone in his current housing unit.

The court also concluded that processing the disciplinary citation complied with a California regulation providing that an inmate who refuses housing determined to be appropriate is subject to discipline. The court found that holding a hearing, considering Rhey’s evidence, and allowing him to remain without a cellmate in the same housing unit did not constitute deliberate indifference.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a legal protection for officials unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in the specific circumstances. The court first concluded that Dutton and Haub had not violated Rhey’s constitutional rights. It further held that, even assuming a constitutional violation, no legal authority clearly established that the officers’ actions—issuing a citation, conducting an investigation and hearing, offering special housing, and permitting Rhey to remain without a cellmate in the same housing unit—were unlawful.

Disposition

The court granted Officers Dutton and Haub’s motion for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claims and also found that qualified immunity provided an additional basis for summary judgment. The court stated that the other defendants had previously been dismissed, ordered a separate judgment, and directed the clerk to close the matter.