Whitall v. Gutierrez

Background

Raymond Richard Whitall, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, alleged that correctional officers S.D. Gutierrez, Gudino, Aboytes, Vasquez, Ramirez, and Caballero attacked him during an incident on February 28, 2017. Whitall said he fell because of a vertigo episode related to Meniere’s disease and that, while he was on the floor, the officers struck him several times in the head. He alleged that the incident caused a concussion and hospitalization.

Whitall filed a second amended complaint without a lawyer in 2018. The court previously dismissed claims related to a separate incident because they involved different defendants and did not meet the rules for joining claims in one lawsuit. The case was then limited to the February 2017 incident. The court also previously dismissed Whitall’s state tort claims after concluding that he had not complied with California’s Government Claims Act, which requires a claim to be filed with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board before bringing certain claims. After California’s Department of General Services determined that it had mistakenly reported that Whitall had not filed a claim, the court vacated its earlier order and reinstated eight state-law claims.

Defendants filed another motion for summary judgment on six reinstated state claims: cruel and unusual punishment, use of unnecessary force, dependent adult abuse, battery against a dependent adult, dependent adult endangerment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Summary judgment is a decision before trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute about an important fact requires a trial. Gudino separately sought summary judgment on all claims against him based on qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Claims for Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Unnecessary Force

The court granted summary judgment on Whitall’s state-law cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim under Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution. The court determined that Whitall’s claim sought damages, and California law does not permit damages under that provision. The court also stated that even if Whitall were seeking declaratory relief, he had not specified what declaration he wanted. The court therefore granted defendants’ motion on this claim.

The court also granted summary judgment on Whitall’s state-law claim for use of unnecessary force under section 3268 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. Whitall did not dispute that this regulation does not create an implied private right to sue. His argument that the allegations could support a separate claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Civil Rights Act, did not change the result because defendants’ motion addressed the Title 15 claim. The court granted summary judgment on the unnecessary-force claim.

Dependent-Adult Claims

Whitall brought three claims under California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act: dependent adult abuse, battery against a dependent adult, and dependent adult endangerment. Defendants argued that Whitall did not qualify as a dependent adult.

The court explained that California law defines a dependent adult as a person between 18 and 64 who resides in California and has physical or mental limitations restricting the ability to carry out normal activities or protect the person’s rights. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Whitall’s mobility impairments and severe mental-health issues restricted his ability to carry out normal activities. The court pointed to evidence that he used an assistive device to walk, could not use stairs, and lived in Enhanced Outpatient Program housing intended for prisoners whose mental-health conditions impair daily activities.

Because the evidence could support competing conclusions about whether Whitall was a dependent adult, the court found a genuine dispute of material fact. It denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all three dependent-adult claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendants argued that Whitall lacked sufficient evidence of severe emotional distress. Under California law, an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim requires extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or reckless disregard concerning emotional distress, severe or extreme emotional distress, and causation.

The court found that Whitall’s evidence went beyond general allegations of worry or anxiety. His medical records described pressing post-traumatic-stress symptoms and nightmares about the incident. He also reported extreme anxiety around current prison guards because he feared the incident would happen again, and alleged that the incident worsened his depression and anxiety. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that he suffered severe emotional distress and denied summary judgment on this claim.

Gudino’s Motion

Gudino argued that he had no knowledge of or involvement in the alleged attack and therefore could not have violated clearly established law. Whitall testified that he remembered Gudino striking him in the face, and a holding-cell log showed that Gudino placed Whitall in the cell, checked on him several times, and was recorded as doing so shortly before Whitall was released.

The court found a factual dispute about whether Gudino remained present and participated in the attack. A jury could infer either that Gudino was still present and participated or that he had left and did not participate. Resolving that dispute would require judging the witnesses’ credibility, which is the jury’s role at this stage. The court therefore denied Gudino’s motion for summary judgment on the rest of the claims against him.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the state-law claims for cruel and unusual punishment and use of unnecessary force. It denied defendants’ motion on the claims for dependent adult abuse, battery against a dependent adult, dependent adult endangerment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It also denied Gudino’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims against him.

The court stated that the lawsuit would proceed against Gutierrez, Gudino, Aboytes, Vasquez, Ramirez, and Caballero on the Eighth Amendment claim, battery, dependent adult abuse, battery against a dependent adult, dependent adult endangerment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Bane Civil Rights Act claim.