Bastian v. Jaramillo

1

THOMAS O. BASTIAN, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER JARAMILLO, TIMOTHY HATCH, M. MARTIN, M. MONTOYA, R. NEWTON, FNU PADILLA, ALISHA TAFOYA LUCERO, and C. BAKER, Defendants.

Civ. No. 21-350 WJ/JFR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

April 8, 2024

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

JOHN F. ROBBENHAAR, United States Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court by Order of Reference^[1] in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Va. Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 489 (10^th Cir. 1990). Doc. 12. On March 8, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion for Summary Judgment or Dismissal on the Grounds of Qualified Immunity (“Motion”). Doc. 35. Plaintiff responded in opposition on July 31, 2023, and Defendants replied on October 31, 2023. Docs. 72, 83. The Motion is ripe for decision.

Plaintiff is litigating this case pro se. The Court is cognizant of its duty to liberally construe his pleadings. Hall v Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991). In lieu of engaging in traditional discovery, the Court ordered Defendants to compile and submit a report pursuant to Martinez v. Aragon, 570 F.2d 317, 320 (10^th Cir. 1987). Doc. 20. Defendants submitted their Martinez Report on March 8 2023.^[2] Doc. 32. Plaintiff responded on July 31 2023. Doc. 73. The Court's order directing Defendants to prepare the Martinez Report notified the parties that the Court would use it to resolve motions for summary judgment. Doc. 20 at 2-3. The Court does so here.

For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the presiding judge GRANT Defendants' Motion and thereby enter summary judgment in their favor as to all of Plaintiff's claims.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is serving a natural-life prison sentence for a criminal conviction from state court in Arizona. Doc. 1 at 7-8. He was transferred to the custody of the New Mexico Corrections Department (“NMCD”) pursuant to the terms of an interstate corrections compact in 2019. Id. Plaintiff arrived at the Northeast New Mexico Correctional Facility (“NENMCF”) on August 6, 2020. Id. On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff commenced the instant lawsuit against eight NMCD officials in their official and personal capacities, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1 at 1-6. In Counts One and Three, Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights secured under the First Amendment. Id. at 9, 17. In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Id. at 13. In Count Four, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Id. at 18.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Pleadings

The Court begins by outlining Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants in his Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). It then turns to the parties' arguments with respect to the instant Motion before discussing the legal standards germane to its resolution.

1. Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff is presently in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (“ADCRR”). Doc. 1 at 3. Each of Plaintiff's claims bears on incoming and outgoing mail from his time in custody at NENMCF.

Plaintiff alleges that, in September 2020, Defendants Jaramillo, Hatch, Montoya, and Martin acted together in issuing a directive to Defendants Newton and Padilla that Plaintiff not be “permitted to send or receive any mail or correspondence” from Kelly Sgrillo, Plaintiff's fiance, “or any other member of the public” including Plaintiff's “Court[-]Appointed Attorneys and Attorney Agents,” who are not his kin. Doc. 1 at 9-10. Plaintiff claims he “mailed out a total of 41 individual pieces of mail/correspondence” to Kelly Sgrillo, but “Defendants Newton and Padilla refused to mail each and every one,” holding them instead, and allowing them “to sit in the facility mailroom, often times for many weeks,” before eventually returning to him unprocessed. Id. at 10. Plaintiff further claims that Defendants Newton, Padilla, Martin, Hatch, Montoya, and Jaramillo refused to deliver 36 pieces of incoming mail from Kelly Sgrillo. Id. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants Newtown, Padilla, Martin, Hatch, and Jaramillo refused to deliver “a total of 19 individual pieces of incoming mail from Stormy Sgrillo,” who Plaintiff claims is his stepdaughter, because she is not Plaintiff's kin. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to mail a number of pieces of mail to individuals and an organization, but Defendants Newton, Padilla, Martin, Montoya, Hatch, and Jaramillo refused to mail any of them. Id.

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that, Defendant Newton “opened, photocopied, read, and refused to deliver” mail marked “Legal Mail” from Dana Young, his “Attorney Agent,” and subsequently attempted to cover-up that the same was legal mail opened outside of Plaintiff's presence. Id. at 13. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Newton, Martin, and Jaramillo “opened, photocopied, and read [his] properly marked and labelled incoming Legal Mail” outside of his presence. Id. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Newton told him “she was only doing what Defendant[s] Jaramillo and Martin asked her to do” and Defendant Martin told him that “Defendant Jaramillo instructed [me] to open the Legal Mail” prior to giving it to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff also claims that “Defendant Newton opened a piece of properly marked and labelled incoming Legal Mail addressed to [Plaintiff] and sent by” an attorney outside of his presence. Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Newton told him “she [was] simply following the directives of Defendants Martin and Jaramillo.” Id. at 14. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Newton refused to mail 27 pieces of legal mail “because Defendants Baker, Martin, Jaramillo, Hatch, and Montoya informed Defendant Newton and Padilla that [Plaintiff] has no right to correspond with any individual that [sic] is not proven ‘Kin.'” Id. at 15. Plaintiff claims this “chilled and prohibited” his ability to communicate with legal counsel.” Plaintiff also alleges that “Defendants Jaramillo, Hatch, Martin, Baker, and Montoya issued a directive to Defendants Newton and Padilla” to prohibit him from communicating via mail with Kelly Sgrillo in her capacity as a witness in a civil court case (unrelated to the instant litigation). Id.

Finally, Plaintiff claims that “Defendants Newton and Padilla failed to provide [him] with a formal Notice of Rejection for a total of 145 individual pieces of incoming and outgoing Legal and Non-Legal mail that they refused to mail, deliver, and process.” Id. at 18. He alleges that “Defendants Jaramillo, Martin, and Baker informed [him] that he is prohibited from filing individual complaints or grievances on each rejection because [he] had no inherent right to mail.” Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Hatch and Jaramillo issued a total ban on mail to and from Kelly Sgrillo and provided him no hearing or appeal regarding the same. Id.

In Plaintiff's view, the allegations set forth above give rise to four claims: violation of his “First Amendment right to send and receive non-legal/privileged mail,” id. at 9, violation of his “Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” id. at 13, violation of his “First Amendment right to have Legal Mail opened” in his presence, id. at 17, and violation of his “Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process,” id. at 18.

2. Defendants' Motion

Defendants seek dismissal or summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. As grounds, Defendants first argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for all claims except for the mail restriction concerning mail to and from Kelly Sgrillo. Doc. 35 at 32. Defendants further argue that suspending mail to and from Kelly Sgrillo and Stormy Sgrillo was constitutional. Id. at 35. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff has not properly asserted a claim for a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the mail at issue concerned civil litigation, rather than a criminal case. Id. at 44. With respect to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim, Defendants argue that Plaintiff was not entitled to due process because he did not have a protected liberty or property interest as his mail restrictions stemmed from legitimate security concerns. Id. at 46. Nevertheless, according to Defendants, Plaintiff received notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning the suspension of mail to and from Kelly Sgrillo and Stormy Sgrillo. Id. at 47. Moreover, Defendants aver that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a claim for want of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 48. Lastly, Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. Id. at 49.

3. Plaintiff's Response^[3]

Plaintiff responds to Defendants' Motion by disputing their assertion that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to all of his claims. Doc. 72 at 19. Plaintiff argues that the restrictions on his mail with Kelly Sgrillo and Stormy Sgrillo did not serve a penological interest. Id. at 30, 35. Plaintiff resists Defendants' claim of qualified immunity. Id. at 44. Finally, Plaintiff states that he “abandons his claims against Defendant Tafoya Lucero^[4] and his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claim[s].” Doc. 72 at 46. The Court considers these claims no further and therefore recommends awarding summary judgment to Defendants on these claims. See Hinsdale v. City of Liberal, 19 Fed.Appx. 749, 768-69 (10^th Cir. 2001) (affirming the grant of summary judgment for the defendants on claims abandoned by the plaintiff in his summary judgment briefing); see also Coffey v. Healthtrust, Inc., 955 F.2d 1388, 1393 (10^th Cir. 1992).

4. Defendants' Reply

Defendants...