Torfason v. Bernal

Background

James Paul Andrew Torfason, a California prisoner representing himself, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Monterey County, Sheriff Steve Bernal, Deputies Sullivan and Lowe, and unnamed officials at the Monterey County Jail. He alleged that the jail housed inmates with sex-offense histories, including him, with general-population inmates affiliated with gangs, creating a risk of assault. He alleged that another inmate, Sampognaro, attacked him on August 5, 2020, causing multiple injuries and a concussion.

Torfason alleged that Deputy Lowe was not in the assigned tower when the assault began and that Deputy Sullivan, who took Torfason’s statement afterward, told him that Lowe had not been in the tower. The defendants presented evidence that Lowe had moved to another tower, that Tower 7 remained staffed, and that another deputy had taken over there.

The defendants also presented the jail’s housing policy. The policy designated inmates at higher risk of assault as protective-custody or “sensitive needs” inmates. Torfason was classified that way because of his charges for sex offenses against children. Sampognaro was also classified as a sensitive-needs inmate, although the record did not show why he had previously received that classification. The evidence showed that Sampognaro had no record of fights at the jail during his stays there and that there was no known history of threats or hostility between him and Torfason.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party identifies the absence of supporting evidence, the opposing party must present specific evidence showing that a real factual dispute requires a trial.

Because Torfason was a pretrial detainee when the assault occurred, the court analyzed his failure-to-protect claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He had to provide evidence that: (1) a defendant intentionally made a decision about his confinement conditions; (2) those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm; (3) the defendant failed to take reasonable available measures to reduce that risk even though the high risk would have been apparent to a reasonable officer; and (4) that failure caused his injuries. The court explained that the conduct had to be objectively unreasonable—more than negligent and similar to reckless disregard.

Analysis

As to Deputy Lowe, Torfason agreed that Lowe was not involved or at fault. The court therefore granted summary judgment in Lowe’s favor.

As to Deputy Sullivan, the operative complaint alleged only that Sullivan took Torfason’s statement after the assault. The court held that taking the statement did not cause the assault and was not an objectively unreasonable failure to reduce its risk. Torfason later asserted in his opposition that Sullivan had missed a required round through the housing unit, but that allegation was not in the complaint, and Torfason offered no evidence that Sullivan missed the round. The court held that speculation or hearsay was insufficient to create a triable factual dispute.

As to Sheriff Bernal, Torfason did not allege that Bernal was personally involved on the day of the assault. The court therefore considered whether Bernal could be liable as a supervisor based on the jail’s housing policies or practices. The court held that supervisory liability required an objectively unreasonable failure to reduce the risk of assault and a causal connection between the supervisor’s actions and Torfason’s injury.

As to Monterey County, Torfason had to show that he was deprived of a constitutional right, that the County had a policy, that the policy showed deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights, and that the policy was the moving force behind the violation.

The court held that the evidence did not create a triable factual issue regarding Bernal or the County. Even assuming Sampognaro had been or remained affiliated with a gang, the court found that this fact alone did not make it obvious to a reasonable official that he would assault Torfason. The record did not show that Sampognaro was dangerous because of gang-related history, that he had fought at the jail, or that he had a history of hostility with Torfason. The court also found no evidence that housing Torfason in B-Dorm, a medium-security unit being used for sensitive-needs inmates who tested positive for COVID-19, caused the assault or endangered him.

The court rejected additional assertions that Sampognaro had murdered Torfason’s father after release or had committed other violence because Torfason offered no supporting evidence and no evidence that the defendants knew about those matters. The court also stated that allegations concerning Torfason’s medical care after the assault were not part of this case because they were absent from the operative complaint and did not identify the responsible officials as defendants. The court noted that this did not prevent Torfason from bringing such claims in a new case.

Other motions and disposition

Torfason filed another amended complaint, called a fourth amended complaint by the court, that added Deputy Mueller and replaced the allegations against Lowe with allegations against Mueller. The court denied Torfason’s motion to serve that complaint on Mueller, finding the proposed amendment futile, unduly prejudicial to Mueller, and wasteful of judicial resources. The court also denied Torfason’s motion to view the assault video because the video was unnecessary to resolve summary judgment, even assuming Torfason’s description of the assault was true. The court denied his motion for appointment of counsel because there was no right to appointed counsel in this civil case, the court had no attorneys available to appoint, and Torfason had been able to present and pursue his claims.

Judge White granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Torfason’s motions identified as docket numbers 70, 77, and 82. The court directed the defendants to file, within five days, an explanation for their failure to file a reply brief. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.