Verduzco v. Price

Background

Daniel Verduzco, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against current and former staff members of Pelican Bay State Prison. The court had previously granted summary judgment to certain defendants. The remaining defendants were Hannah Bush, Lieutenant Basso, and Rook. Basso and Rook filed a joint motion for summary judgment, and Bush filed a separate motion.

The court also addressed several other filings. Verduzco filed a motion “for evidence,” two motions for extensions of time, and an ex parte motion. The defendants filed a motion to strike Verduzco’s “sur-replies.” Bush’s answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was also before the court, even though the opinion identifies the Third Amended Complaint as the operative pleading.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After the moving party identifies the absence of supporting evidence, the opposing party must present specific evidence showing that a real factual dispute exists.

Claims against Rook

Rook, a nursing assistant, monitored Verduzco in a mental-health crisis bed on May 8 and 9, 2017. She recorded observations every 15 minutes through a window in the door, while lights remained on. Verduzco said he intentionally cut his little finger during those shifts, but Rook’s records indicated that she did not see him do so. Other prison medical and mental-health personnel gave him medication, checked his vital signs, examined him, and met with him during those days. A portion of his finger was later found to be dead tissue and was amputated.

Verduzco claimed that Rook was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical and mental-health needs. Deliberate indifference requires evidence that a prison official knew about a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. The court assumed that Verduzco’s mental-health conditions and finger injury were serious medical needs but found no evidence that Rook knew he was injuring his finger or that the care being provided was inadequate. The court found that his argument that Rook must have seen the injury was speculation. It also found that his evidence did not show that Rook understood his statements as threats of self-harm.

The court held that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Rook was deliberately indifferent and granted summary judgment to Rook on Verduzco’s Eighth Amendment claim. Because of that conclusion, the court did not reach Rook’s alternative arguments concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies or qualified immunity.

Claims against Basso

Basso, a lieutenant, investigated information that Bush had an improper relationship with Verduzco. Basso concluded that Bush had violated prison rules concerning overly familiar relationships with inmates, sent his report to the responsible prison officials the next day, and arranged for a gate stop preventing Bush from entering Pelican Bay State Prison. Bush was placed on administrative leave and did not return to the prison except for an Internal Affairs interview; she later resigned from the California prison system.

Verduzco claimed that Basso failed to protect him from Bush’s alleged sexual abuse. The court found that the undisputed evidence showed Basso investigated promptly, reported the matter, and took reasonable steps to stop Bush’s contact with Verduzco at that prison. The court also found no evidence that Basso knew about Bush’s later visits to Verduzco at other prisons or had authority to prevent those visits.

The court held that no reasonable fact-finder could find that Basso knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm. It granted summary judgment to Basso on Verduzco’s Eighth Amendment claim. The court likewise did not reach Basso’s alternative arguments concerning exhaustion or qualified immunity.

Claims against Bush

Bush was a postdoctoral psychology intern who treated Verduzco at Pelican Bay State Prison from February through May 2017. Bush acknowledged a romantic relationship and romantic letters but denied Verduzco’s allegations that they engaged in sexual activity during therapy. Verduzco also claimed that Bush used sexually explicit language, engaged in sexual conduct during later prison visits, and asked him to cut off his finger. Bush denied the relevant allegations.

The court ruled that conduct occurring after Bush resigned from state employment could not support a § 1983 claim because she was no longer acting under color of state law, meaning she was not acting as a state official or employee. The court therefore considered only conduct during the approximately three months when she was treating Verduzco as a state employee.

As to alleged physical sexual abuse during therapy, the court found that the therapy sessions took place with Verduzco inside a metal and plexiglass box and under frequent observation by correctional officers. It concluded that the record blatantly contradicted Verduzco’s account of physical sexual activity during those sessions and that no reasonable fact-finder could find physical sexual abuse or harassment while Bush was a state employee.

The court treated the remaining allegations of sexually explicit statements and letters as, at most, verbal harassment. It held that verbal sexual harassment without sexual or physical contact did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation under the circumstances. The court also found no triable factual issue on the claim that Bush failed to prevent or encouraged Verduzco’s finger injury. The evidence showed that she performed self-harm assessments, documented his threats, and reported them to supervisors; his allegation that she asked him to cut off his finger was uncorroborated and contradicted by evidence of his prior self-harm.

The court granted summary judgment to Bush on Verduzco’s Eighth Amendment claims.

Other rulings and final disposition

The court granted the motions for summary judgment. It denied Verduzco’s motion “for evidence,” granted his two motions for an extension of time, denied his ex parte motion, and denied the defendants’ motion to strike his “sur-replies.” The court also struck Bush’s answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.