The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 DEAN MARTIN SEALEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-KES-EPG (PC)
9 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO FILE DEPOSITION
10 v. TRANSCRIPT UNDER SEAL; AND (2)
REQUIRING SETTLEMENT
11 DUSTIN FAGUNDES, et al., CONFERENCE REPORT FOURTEEN
DAYS AFTER RULING ON MOTIONS FOR
12 Defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DISTRICT
JUDGE
13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’
14 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE
GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED IN
15 PART; FURTHER RECOMMENDING
THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
16 SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED
17 (ECF Nos. 47, 48)
18 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
19
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 Plaintiff Dean Martin Sealey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
22
action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was severely injured
during the course of his prison employment after being directed to clean machinery, even
23
though he had no training, experience, or supervision.
24
Both parties now move for summary judgment. Defendants Dustin Fagundes and Steve
25
Souza argue that (1) they are not liable because Plaintiff was injured because he defied his
26
training, (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity, and (3) Souza was not responsible for
27
1 Plaintiff’s training or supervision. (ECF No. 48-1, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff argues that the undisputed
2 facts show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his safety needs by directing
3 him to clean machinery without showing him how to properly do so. (ECF No. 47).
4 For the reasons given below, it is recommended that Defendants’ motion be granted to
the extent that Defendant Souza be granted summary judgment and denied to the extent that it
5
requests that Defendant Fagundes be granted summary judgment. It is also recommended that
6
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied.
7
II. BACKGROUND
8
A. The complaint
9
This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants were deliberately
10
indifferent to his safety needs under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 5, 7). The underlying
11
incident occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF)
12
In April 2022, Plaintiff was assigned to the California Prison Industry Authority (PIA).
13
His job title was package handler. In August 2022, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Defendant Fagundes,
14
ordered Plaintiff to work in the peanut butter and jelly section.
15
On this day, Defendants Fagundes and Souza had decided to experiment with
16 processing hummus through the jelly processing system. However, this led to the entire system
17 being clogged. Plaintiff and another inmate were given a direct order to clean inside the pipes
18 and pump. However, Defendants never trained Plaintiff on how to clean the machinery.
19 While trying to remove a gasket from the pump, Plaintiff’s left index finger came into
20 contact with a spinning propeller, causing Plaintiff’s finger to be shredded and amputated.2
21 B. Motions for Summary Judgment
22 Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment on August 28, 2024. (ECF No. 47).
Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on September 16, 2024. (ECF No. 48).
23
Each party has opposed the other party’s motion. (ECF Nos. 48, 50, 51). Accordingly, the
24
parties’ motions for summary judgment are ripe for decision.
25
\\\
26
27
2 Both parties acknowledge elsewhere in the record that Plaintiff’s finger only needed to be partially
1 III. LEGAL STANDARDS
2 A. Summary Judgment
3 A party may move for summary judgment on a claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
4 Summary judgment in favor of a party is appropriate when there “is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
5
56(a); Albino v. Baca (“Albino II”), 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“If there is
6
a genuine dispute about material facts, summary judgment will not be granted.”). A party
7
asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by “citing to particular parts
8
of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
9
affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),
10
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials, or showing that the materials cited do not
11
establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
12
admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
13
As for Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, because he “will have the burden of
14
proof on an issue at trial, [he] must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact
15
could find other than for [him].” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.
16 2007). As for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the following standards apply:
17 A moving party without the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial—usually, but
not always, a defendant—has both the initial burden of production and the
18
ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment. See 10A
Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice
19
and Procedure § 2727 (3d ed.1998). In order to carry its burden of production,
20 the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of
the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does
21 not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of
persuasion at trial. See High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office,
22
895 F.2d 563, 574 (9th Cir.1990). In order to carry its ultimate burden of
23 persuasion on the motion, the moving party must persuade the court that there is
no genuine issue of material fact. See id.
24
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).
25 If a party moving for summary judgment “carries its burden of production, the
26 nonmoving party must produce evidence to support its claim or defense.” Id. at 1103. And “if
27 the nonmoving party produces enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the
1 nonmoving party defeats the motion.” Id.
2 In reviewing the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court “must draw all
3 reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Comite de
4 Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). It
need only draw inferences, however, where there is “evidence in the record . . . from which a
5
reasonable inference . . . may be drawn”; the court need not entertain inferences that are
6
unsupported by fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 330 n. 2 (citation omitted). Additionally, “[t]he
7
evidence of the non-movant is to be believed.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
8
255, (1986). Further, the Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the
9
parties but is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified
10
School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001).
11
In reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, a court is required to consider each
12
motion on its own merits. Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d
13
1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). “In fulfilling its duty to review each cross-motion separately, the
14
court must review the evidence submitted in support of each cross-motion.” Id.
15 B. Deliberate Indifference
16 “It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions
17 under which [the prisoner] is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.”
18 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
19 (1994). Conditions of confinement may, consistent with the Constitution, be restrictive and
20 harsh. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Prison officials must, however,
21 provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.”
22 Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other
grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
23
Two requirements must be met to show an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer, 511
24
U.S. at 834. “First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious.” Id.
25
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, “a prison official must have a
26
sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which for conditions of confinement claims “is one of
27
deliberate indifference.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Prison officials act
1 with deliberate indifference when they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health
2 or safety. Id. at 837. The circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivations are critical in
3 determining whether the conditions complained of are grave enough to form the basis of a
4 viable Eighth Amendment claim. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2006).
“More specifically, the Eighth Amendment is implicated in the prison work context
5
only when a prisoner employee alleges that a prison official compelled him to ‘perform
6
physical labor which [was] beyond [his] strength, endanger[ed his life] or health, or cause[d]
7
undue pain.”’ Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Berry v.
8
Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam)).
9
IV. DISCUSSION
10
A. Undisputed Facts
11
The parties do not dispute the following facts. Plaintiff was an inmate at SATF during
12
the time of the incident. (ECF No. 48-2, p. 1; ECF No. 47, p. 5). In April 2022, Plaintiff started
13
a job with the PIA working as a package handler. (ECF No. 48-2, p. 2; ECF No. 47, p. 5).
14
Defendant Fagundes was Plaintiff’s supervisor. (ECF No. 48-2, p. 1; ECF No. 47, p. 5). On
15
August 31, 2022, Defendants tried to process hummus through machinery, leading to a clog in
16 the system. (ECF No. 48-2, p.21; ECF No. 47, p. 7).
17 Fagundes, in at least some manner, instructed Plaintiff and other workers to unclog the
18 system. (ECF No. 48-2, p. 3; ECF No. 47, p. 7). In the process of trying to remove a gasket
19 from a pump, Plaintiff’s left index finger was injured, requiring a partial amputation. (ECF No.
20 48-2, p. 4; ECF No. 47, pp. 13-14; Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 62).
21 B. Summary of the Parties’ Positions
22 The crux of the dispute comes down to whether Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety needs because they failed to properly train and supervise him in
23
cleaning the machinery.
24
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff’s motion argues
25
as follows:
26
Sealey’s training materials prove that Sealey knew not to put his hand into a
27 running machine, and Defendants were not aware of a serious risk of harm
because they could not have known that Sealey would defy his training
1 especially where, as here, Sealey was instructed to perform a task that did not
require him to place his hand inside a machine. Moreover, Sealey’s claims fail
2 for lack of causation because he was trained not to put his hand in moving
machinery and it was unforeseeable that he would defy that training. Defendants
3
are also entitled to qualified immunity.
4
(ECF No. 48-1, pp. 1-2).
5 In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants provide their own
6 declarations, safety instructions that Plaintiff was purportedly provided, Plaintiff’s medical
7 records, and excerpts from Plaintiff’s deposition.3
8 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants’ motion
9 contends that he was never properly trained on how to clean the machinery. (ECF Nos. 47, 50).
10 Rather, he states that he was left with another inmate to train and supervise him, which the
11 inmate failed to do.
12 In support of his arguments, Plaintiff offers his own declaration, statements from other
13 inmates, discovery responses, purported photographs of the machinery at issue, and documents
14 he received in connection with his job (including safety instructions).
15 C. Analysis
The Court considers the arguments as to each Defendant separately, starting with
16
Fagundes, whom the parties agree was Plaintiff’s supervisor in his PIA job. 4
17
\\\
18
\\\
19
20 3 Defendants have also provided the Court with the entire transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition as required
by Local Rule 133(j). (ECF No. 49). An entire deposition transcript “will [not] become part of the
21
official record of the action absent order of the Court.” Local Rule 133(j). Because the Court has quoted
22 from multiple pages of the deposition transcript that are not yet part of the record, the Court will direct
the Clerk of Court of file the entire deposition transcript for the record, but under seal.
23 4 As an initial matter, Defendants argue that “Sealey’s motion for summary judgment should be denied
as procedurally deficient . . . [because it] does not include a statement of undisputed facts properly
24 supported by evidence as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Civil Local Rule
260(a).” (ECF No. 48-1, p. 6). The Court rejects this argument. First, although Plaintiff has failed to set
25 forth a statement of undisputed facts under Local Rule 260(a), he otherwise provides evidence with his
filings and sufficiently explains why he believes that the evidence supports his factual positions. The
26 Court also takes into consideration that Plaintiff is pro se and incarcerated. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988) (“This court recognizes that it has a duty to ensure that pro se
27 litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to ignorance of technical
procedural requirements. Thus, for example, pro se pleadings are liberally construed, particularly where
1 1. Fagundes
2 a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
3 The Court begins with Fagundes’ motion for summary judgment, which argues that the
4 undisputed facts establish that he was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety needs and
that he is entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 48-1). Generally, Fagundes argues that he is
5
not liable because Plaintiff was provided with training and instructions that made clear that
6
Plaintiff was not supposed to put his hands in moving machinery.
7
i. Fagundes’ argument
8
Fagundes provides a declaration stating that Plaintiff received the following training
9
and instructions:
10
• Sealey received the California Prison Industry Authority Food and Beverage
11 Packaging Safety Instructions, which provide that factory workers should
“[k]eep hands and fingers away from belts, pulleys, and moving parts,” and
12 that “[r]epair and maintenance work shall only be performed by the
designated persons.”
13
• Sealey received the Lockout/Tagout Preventing Machine Suprises training,
14
which instructs factory workers to turn machines off before maintaining or
15 repairing them and that failure to do so could result in injury.
16 • Sealey took the California Prison Industry Authority – Staff/Inmate
Orientation SATF General Safety Quiz. Sealey marked true the following
17 statement: “You should never oil, adjust, or clean machinery while it is in
motion.”
18
19 • [Regarding the incident at issue, Fagundes] instructed Sealey and two other
senior factory workers to begin the [Clean-in-Place] CIP process and
20 returned to his office.
21
• The process is called “Clean-in-Place” because the machine is cleaned with
22 all the pipes and pieces of the machine left in place. The CIP process runs hot
water through the machine on a cycle to clean out the pipes. The steps of
23 running a CIP are: (1) fill the kettle with water using a hose; (2) open the
kettle valve; (3) flip a switch to begin the flow of hot water through the
24 system; and (4) observe the draining water to confirm that it runs clear. The
machine is powered on during the CIP process.
25
26 • Because the CIP process does not include dismantling the machine or placing
your hands in the machine, direct supervision is not required. Factory
27 workers run the CIP process daily to ensure the machines in the factory are
cleaned and sanitized to process food. Workers performing the CIP process
1 are trained to do so “on-the-job” by more senior workers.
2 (ECF No. 48-2, p. 2) (internal citation to exhibit numbers omitted).
3 Based on these facts, Fagundes argues as follows:
Fagundes [was] not deliberately indifferent because [he] did not know Sealey
4
would stray from the CIP process, defy his training, and put his hand in moving
5 machinery without authorization.
As stated above, the CIP process does not require anyone to put their hands
6
inside the machine or to dismantle the machine in any way. Sealey was also
7 specifically trained not to put his hands inside a machine while it was on
because it could cause injury. Because of Sealey’s training and instruction to
8 perform the CIP process, Fagundes [] did not know of or consciously disregard a
risk of injury to Sealey when performing the CIP process. And even if [he] had
9 known that Sealey was going to put his hand in the machine, [he] would not
have known or disregarded a risk that he would place his hands in moving
10
machinery because of Sealey’s training.
11 Accordingly, Fagundes [was] not deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of
harm to Sealey.
12
(ECF No. 48-1, p. 11) (internal citations omitted).
13
ii. Plaintiff’s argument
14
Plaintiff’s account of events differs markedly from Fagundes’. (ECF No. 50). In his
15
declaration, he states that when he was hired to work for PIA—roughly four months before the
16
incident—he was hired as a package handler (also referred to as a food packer). (Id. at 2). At
17
his deposition, Plaintiff described this job as follows:
18
They got a -- food -- a jelly packing machine that packaged the little small jelly
19 packs. When that machine kicks all the jelly packs into a box -- small box, fill it
up. I would take the box, put it on the conveyor belt, push it through the taper
20 and stack it on a pallet. Fifty boxes to a pallet. Once that 50 boxes is done, I take
the Reno wrap – plastic wrap and wrap it around there to secure it. And then I
21 will get a pallet jack, lift it up and take it to a designated area that they want me
to take it to. That was my job. That was sitting next to the jelly packing
22
machine, and, you know, stacking boxes on the pallet, and that’s what I was
23 doing all day.
(Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 17). This job description is supported by a document that Plaintiff
24
provides called “Inmate Job Description.” (ECF No. 47) (stating, among other things that,
25
“Workers may stack, separate, count, pack, wrap, and weigh products. Workers will be
26
responsible for removing sealed bread packages from the out-feed conveyor.”).
27
With these duties in mind, Plaintiff states that he was not required to perform the CIP
1 process as part of his package handling position. (ECF No. 50, p. 6). Moreover, while he
2 acknowledges receiving some of the safety documents that Fagundes discusses in his
3 declaration, Plaintiff states that the lockout/tagout document—which concerns turning off a
4 machine—was never presented to him. (Id. at 3). In support of this argument, Plaintiff correctly
notes that the employee and supervisor signature lines are blank on this form.5 (Id.; ECF No.
5
48-3, p. 6).
6
Relatedly, Plaintiff states that when Fagundes instructed him to perform the CIP process,
7
he understood it to mean “clean inside the pipe and pumps.” (ECF No. 50, p. 4). Plaintiff
8
claims that he was never trained on the CIP process and, after Fagundes ordered him to perform
9
the CIP process, he explained to Fagundes that he was not familiar with it. (Id.; see Plaintiff’s
10
deposition, p. 35 – Plaintiff stating that he told Fagundes he was “not familiar with all that stuff
11
[in reference to the CIP process] and Fagundes responded that it was “a good time for
12
[Plaintiff] to train with [a fellow inmate]”). However, rather than training him, Fagundes
13
directed him to work with two inmate workers. (ECF No. 50, p. 4).
14
Plaintiff’s recollection of never being trained by Fagundes on the CIP process is
15
supported by Fagundes’ own declaration and discovery responses. While Fagundes states that
16 he directed Plaintiff to perform the CIP process—and his declaration explains the steps of the
17 process and that it does not involve working inside the machinery—Fagundes never states that
18 he explained to Plaintiff what the steps of the CIP process are, nor how Plaintiff was not
19 supposed to put his hands inside the machinery during the process. (ECF No. 48-3, p. 3). And
20 although Fagundes states that “[w]orkers performing the CIP process are trained to do so ‘on-
21 the-job’ by more senior workers,” he never states that Plaintiff was trained on the CIP process
22 by a senior worker. Plaintiff stated at his deposition that inmate workers cannot be trusted to
train “because they are not dedicated to training nobody.” (Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 45).
23
Further, Fagundes admitted in his discovery responses that “no [CIP training] written document
24
existed at the time of the incidents at issue in this lawsuit.” (ECF No. 47, p. 34).
25
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Fagundes instructed him, via communication with
26
one of the inmates that Plaintiff was training with, “to process the last two pipes and check the
27
1 gasket.” (Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 38). He states that he follows such instruction because not
2 complying could lead to him getting fired or a disciplinary action. (Plaintiff’s deposition, p.
3 46). This assertion is supported by the “Inmate Job Description” document that Plaintiff
4 provides, which states that refusal to meet expected job standards “could result in disciplinary
action and unassignment.” (ECF No. 47, p. 47).
5
Moreover, Plaintiff states that, when he went to check the gasket on the machine, he was
6
expecting a gasket that contained a screen. (Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 43). However, Fagundes
7
changed the gasket to one without a screen—an “open gasket”—to allow for a better flow for
8
processing hummus in the machinery. (Id. at 49). However, “[Fagundes] did not tell the
9
workers.” (Id.).
10
Plaintiff did not know the pump was on when he was working on it “because the pump is
11
completely qu[ie]t.” (ECF No. 50, p. 6). Further, because of the position of the machinery,
12
Plaintiff could not clearly see the gasket when he went to remove it. (Plaintiff’s deposition, pp.
13
54-55). He reached in to pull out the stuck gasket in the pipe, which is when his finger slipped
14
into the pump of the machinery, causing his finger to be injured. (Id. at 55-57).
15
Lastly, although Plaintiff acknowledges that maintenance workers are supposed to clean
16 machinery, he states that, because they take too long to do so, staff “recklessly use[] inmates to
17 do that” in order to make sure production continued. (Id. at 75).
18 Based on these facts, Plaintiff argues that Fagundes misrepresents the evidence.
19 Generally, he argues that he was never trained on the proper cleanup procedure and it was not
20 clear how to perform it without training, especially given his role as a package handler. Thus,
21 Fagundes was deliberately indifferent to his safety needs by failing to train and supervise him.
22 iii. Analysis
With the parties’ competing arguments in mind, the Court concludes that Fagundes has
23
failed to meet his initial burden of showing that he is entitled to summary judgment. Nissan
24
Fire, 210 F.3d at 1102. Notably, the evidence discussed above reveals multiple genuine issues
25
of material fact.
26
Most importantly, the parties dispute the key issue here—whether Plaintiff was ever
27
properly trained to work on the machinery. Among other things, the parties dispute whether
1 Plaintiff knew the CIP process and was ever instructed on the lockout/tagout procedure.
2 Fagundes’ reply argues that, whether Plaintiff received certain training is ultimately
3 immaterial, because there is no dispute he received at least some other training, e.g., like to
4 keep his hands away from moving parts. (ECF No. 51, p. 2). The Court does not find this
argument convincing.
5
Notably, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the Court must,
6
Fagundes directed Plaintiff and fellow inmates to work on the internal portions of the
7
machinery, i.e., to check the gasket from the pump that ultimately caused Plaintiff’s injury. See
8
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir. 1987)
9
(“Therefore, at summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence in the light most
10
favorable to the nonmoving party: if direct evidence produced by the moving party conflicts
11
with direct evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the judge must assume the truth of the
12
evidence set forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that fact.”). As Fagundes repeatedly
13
argues that such an action would be contrary to safety training, he would have known that
14
ordering Plaintiff to do this would pose an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s safety. And according to
15
Plaintiff, ignoring workplace instructions could lead to disciplinary action against him.
16 Moreover, Fagundes’ further enhanced the danger present in the task by using an open gasket
17 (i.e., one without a screen) and without telling the inmates whom he instructed to work on the
18 machinery. This all occurred despite Plaintiff telling Fagundes that he did not know the proper
19 cleaning process; Fagundes being responsible for Plaintiff’s training; Fagundes admitting that
20 he did not directly train Plaintiff on the CIP process; and Fagundes leaving Plaintiff’s training
21 and supervision to another inmate, whom Plaintiff contends was not up for the task.
22 In light of such facts, construed in favor of Plaintiff, a jury could reasonably find that
Fagundes was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety needs despite Plaintiff receiving
23
some contrary instruction, e.g., not to put his hands near moving parts. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
24
248 (“[S]ummary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is,
25
if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”).
26
Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be
27
denied to the extent that Fagundes requests summary judgment based on the arguments
1 discussed above.
2 b. Qualified immunity
3 Fagundes also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has
4 failed “to point to case law showing that the right was clearly defined at the time of the alleged
violation.” (ECF No. 51, p. 5).
5
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for
6
civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
7
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v. Callahan,
8
555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
9
In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must
10
decide (1) whether the facts shown by plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right;
11
and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s alleged
12
misconduct. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently
13
clear “that every ‘reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is doing violates
14
that right.’” Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2090 (2012) (quoting Al–Kidd, 563 U.S. at
15
741) (alteration in original). This immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those
16
who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
17
Binding caselaw “need not catalogue every way in which” prison conditions can
18
be constitutionally inadequate “for us to conclude that a reasonable official
19 would understand that his actions violated” an inmate’s rights. Castro v. County
of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Rather, “a right
20 is clearly established when the ‘contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that
a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’”
21 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077 (9th
Cir. 2003)).
22
Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754, 769 (9th Cir. 2023).
23
With these standards in mind, and for the reasons discussed above, the facts could
24
establish a constitutional violation.
25
Further, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, establishes the
26
following: Fagundes directed Plaintiff to clean dangerous machinery that was the responsibility
27
of maintenance workers—including checking the gasket on a pump—despite not telling
1 Plaintiff that he had installed a more dangerous “open gasket,” and Fagundes did not train or
2 supervise Plaintiff, who explained that he did not know how to properly clean the machinery.
3 These facts, if true, violate the following clearly established law:
4 [P]rison officials supervising [an inmate worker] have a constitutional obligation
to take reasonable measures to guarantee his safety. See Osolinski, 92 F.3d at 937.
5
Not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in prison represents a constitutional
6 violation. A prisoner claiming an Eighth Amendment violation must show (1) that
the deprivation he suffered was “objectively, sufficiently serious;” and (2) that
7 prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety in allowing the
deprivation to take place. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970. More
8 specifically, the Eighth Amendment is implicated in the prison work context only
when a prisoner employee alleges that a prison official compelled him to
9
“perform physical labor which [was] beyond [his] strength, endanger[ed his life]
10 or health, or cause[d] undue pain.” Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th
Cir.1994) (per curiam); see also Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.1995)
11 (analyzing under the Eighth Amendment a prisoner's claim that his health was
endangered when he was forced to remove asbestos without protective gear).
12
Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045, (9th Cir. 2006) opinion amended on reh'g (9th
13
Cir., Nov. 30, 2006, No. 04-35608) 2006 WL 3437344 (prison supervisor's alleged actions of
14
compelling prisoner to perform work that endangered his health and caused undue pain violated
15
prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights). See also Hoa v. Cate, No. C-12-2078 EMC, 2014 WL
16
2186626, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) (“From Morgan, a reasonable officer would have
17 understood that compelling an inmate to continue working under hazardous conditions, after
18 the inmates raise serious concerns whether it was safe to do so, violated his Eighth Amendment
19 right ‘not to be compelled to perform work that endangered his health and caused undue
20 pain.”’) (internal citation to Morgan omitted).
21 Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
22 be denied to the extent that Fagundes requests summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
23 c. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
24 Having addressed Fagundes’ motion for summary judgment, the Court turns to
Plaintiff’s motion, with Plaintiff now bearing the burden of showing that he is entitled to
25
summary judgment. In arguing that he is entitled to summary judgment, Plaintiff relies on the
26
same arguments and evidence discussed above in opposing Fagundes’ motion for summary
27
judgment. Likewise, Fagundes relies on the same arguments and evidence in support of his
1 motion for summary judgment in arguing that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment;
2 primarily, that Plaintiff was properly trained and defied his safety training in working on the
3 internal parts of the machinery that led to his injury.
4 For the reasons described above in connection with Fagundes’ motion, the Court will
deny Plaintiff’s motion. Importantly, there are genuine disputes of material fact precluding
5
summary judgment, e.g., whether Plaintiff was in fact properly trained to work on the
6
machinery and whether he followed the safety instructions he received or diverted from them.
7
Because Plaintiff cannot “affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find
8
other than for [him],” the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
9
be denied as to Fagundes. Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984.
10
2. Souza
11
Separately, defendant Souza asserts in his motion for summary judgment, with the
12
support of his declaration, that he was a superintendent overseeing the entire food packaging
13
operation at SATF. (ECF No. 48-4, p. 2). In this role, he oversees other supervisors, among
14
other tasks, but does “not supervise or train inmate workers.” (Id.). Rather, “industrial
15
supervisors supervise and train inmate workers.” (Id.). And he specifically asserts that he “did
16
not train or supervise Sealey on August 31, 2022, or at any time.” (Id.). Further, while Souza
17
concedes that both he and Fagundes were responsible for directing workers to run hummus
18
through the machinery on August 31, 2022, he states that he “left work after the workers began
19
processing hummus through the machine,” and “was not present when Sealey was instructed to
20
perform [t]he CIP process.” (Id.). Accordingly, he claims that, because he had no involvement
21
with the underlying incident, he cannot be held liable.
22
Plaintiff does not meaningful dispute Souza’s factual assertions and largely confirms
23
them. For example, in his deposition, Plaintiff states that “We didn’t have any interaction with
24
[Souza]. He’s the superintendent. He’s, like, high up. Everything, we -- we interact with
25
[Fagundes].” (Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 25). Further, Plaintiff states that he saw Souza in the
26
morning of August 31 but did not see him again later that day. (Id.). And he states that
27
Fagundes was the only person, beside workers not implicated here, that could swap out the
1 gasket. (Id. at 58-59).
2 Plaintiff tries to argue that Souza is liable because he instructed him to run hummus
3 through the machinery. (ECF No. 50, p. 12). However, this fact is ultimately immaterial
4 because Plaintiff’s running hummus through the machinery is not what led to his injury; rather,
5 it was his subsequent cleaning of the machinery in a way that was dangerous. And all the
6 available evidence indicates that Souza was not responsible for directing Plaintiff to do so, or
7 administering any training or supervision to Plaintiff for his work.
8 As Defendants correctly note (ECF No. 48-1, pp. 6-7), supervisory personnel are not
9 liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior.
10 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Rather, to state a claim for relief under § 1983,
11 a plaintiff must allege some facts that would support a claim that the supervisory defendant
12 either: was personally involved in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights, Hansen v.
13 Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); “knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent
14 them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); or promulgated or “implement[ed] a
15 policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the
16 moving force of the constitutional violation,” Hansen, 885 F.2d at 646 (citations and internal
17 quotation marks omitted).
18 Here, there are no such allegations and thus the Court will recommend that Defendants’
19 motion for summary judgment be granted to the extent that Souza be granted summary
20 judgment. Likewise, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
21 be denied as to Souza.
22 V. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
24 1. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file a copy of Plaintiff’s entire
25 deposition transcript under seal.
26 2. Within fourteen days of the District Judge’s ruling on the parties’ motions for
27 summary judgment, to the extent that any claims remain, Defendants shall file an
updated report regarding whether Defendants want the Court to set a settlement
1 conference. (ECF No. 43)
2 Additionally, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
3 1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 48) be granted, in part, and
4 denied, in part. Specifically, the Court recommends that Defendant Souza be
5 granted summary judgment and be dismissed from this action and terminated
6 from the dockedt, and that Defendant Fagundes be denied summary judgment.
7 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied in its entirety. (ECF No. 47)
8 3. This action proceed only on Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Fagundes was
9 deliberately indifferent to his safety needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within thirty
(30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
12 written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be
served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. Any objections shall
15 | be limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits. The parties are advised that
16 | failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
17 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d
18 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
19
IS SO ORDERED.
21! Dated: _ December 13, 2024 [Je hey
0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28