Gracia v. Nanos

1

Daniella Marie Gracia, Plaintiff, v. Chris Nanos, Ofelia Dorsey, and William Grimsey, Defendants.

No. CV-20-00451-TUC-LCK

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 26, 2023

ORDER

HONORABLE LYNNETTE C. KIMMINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gracia's Motion for Summary Judgment with accompanying statement of facts (Docs. 85-88) and Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Summary Judgment with accompanying statement of facts (Docs. 94-95). The parties have filed responses and replies to the motions. (Docs. 10005.) Gracia also filed two additional attachments and a notice of errata. (Docs 107-09.) The Court heard oral argument on the motions on May 1, 2023, and took the motions under advisement. (Doc. 110.) The Court finds it most expeditious to address all of the claims under the summary judgment standard, rather than ruling on Defendants' request for judgment on the pleadings as to specific claims. After review of the briefs and the evidence submitted, and considering the parties' oral arguments, the Court grants summary judgment in Defendants' favor as to all claims.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1289 (9th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings and supporting documents "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson 477 U.S. at 248. A genuine issue exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.

FACTS^[1]

No one disputes that Plaintiff Gracia was brought to the Pima County Adult Detention Center (PCADC) in the early hours of October 21, 2019. On that day, Defendant Grimsey was a corrections sergeant working as a shift supervisor until 6:30 a.m. (Doc. 86, Ex. 11 at 6-7.) An October 28 report found Gracia's blood alcohol content (BAC) was .219, based on testing of her blood drawn shortly before her arrival at PCADC. (Doc. 95, Ex. C at 2, 13.)

At an unknown time, Nurse Joyce Dower documented in a Healthcare Receiving Screen, that Gracia reported experiencing flair ups with sciatica due to an accident "years ago." (Doc. 86, Ex. 4 at 019.) There is no evidence Defendants had notice of this information. The PCADC initial intake form states that Gracia went through a metal detector and was given a pat search. (Id. at 032.) Defendant Corrections Officer Ofelia Dorsey testified that Gracia reported having back pain just before Dorsey conducted the pat down. (Id. at 011, 032-33.) Defendant Dorsey observed that Gracia reacted as if she was in significant pain when Dorsey touched her gently on her back, and Dorsey found the response to be exaggerated. (Id. at 011-12.)

Defendant Dorsey documented in writing that Gracia "refused to obey orders, very sarcastic and refused to dress out at first. Almost ended up strapped to a chair." (Id. at 032; Doc. 95, Ex. E at 22-23.) The officer testified similarly that Gracia was angry at times, and, during the dress-out process, her behavior was erratic, she was argumentative, and she did not want to cooperate. (Doc. 95, Ex. E at 13, 15, 46.) Gracia attested that she was cooperative during the dress-out process and made no verbal threats to any staff members. (Doc. 86, Ex. 16 ¶¶ 2, 10.) Gracia was placed in a holding cell. (Doc. 95, Ex. B at 23-24, Ex. E at 14-15.)

At 4:20 a.m., Summer Berry, a mental health professional, documented that Gracia refused to answer questions from her. (Doc. 95, Ex. H at 20-23, Ex. J at 19.) On a Suicide/Self-Injury Risk Assessment, Berry noted that Gracia was uncooperative, nonresponsive to questions, and hostile. (Doc. 86, Ex. 4 at 023-24, 026.) After being told she could be placed in the most restrictive environment for lack of participation, staff reported that Gracia took off her shirt, dropped her pants, and yelled at Berry, but did not answer screening questions. (Id. at 024; Doc. 95, Ex. B at 24, Ex. H at 23, Ex. J at 19.) At 4:21 a.m., Berry placed Gracia on suicide watch due to her being uncooperative and unable to ensure her own safety. (Doc. 86, Ex. 4 at 044.) In contrast, Gracia declared that she did not refuse to answer any questions from medical staff, she was not a danger to herself or others at any point, and she made no statements indicating she was suicidal. (Doc. 86, Ex. 16 ¶¶ 8-9.)

The Pima County Sheriff's Department Corrections Bureau Standard Operating Procedures state that a new arrestee placed on suicide watch may remain in intake or be moved to the Mental Health Unit (MHU); however, if inmates need to be placed in a holding cell "to control their activity," they will be taken to the MHU. (Doc. 86, Ex. 6, D5SD.000188-89 ¶¶ 5, 6(5).) Berry testified that an inmate on suicide watch may remain at intake if they are following directives. (Doc. 86, Ex. 5 at 44-45.) The decision to move an inmate to the MHU is made by medical staff and the Intake Sergeant. (Doc. 86, Ex. 6, D5SD.000188-89 ¶ 5(1).) Defendant Grimsey testified that Gracia had to be transferred to the MHU because she was already in a holding cell when she was placed on suicide watch, and a 5-minute suicide watch cannot be conducted on a detainee in an intake holding cell. (Doc. 95, Ex. I at 9-10, Ex. E at 51.) Defendants Dorsey and Grimsey escorted Gracia to the MHU. (Doc. 86, Ex. 3 at 18.) Corrections officers are directed to document on a log the activities of a detainee on suicide watch. (Doc. 86, Ex. 6 at ¶ 5SD.000187 ¶ 3(2).)

When a detainee is taken to the MHU, a more extensive search is required, including a Body Cavity Inspection (BCI). (Doc. 95, Ex. E at 30, 51, Ex. I at 9.) A BCI will be conducted for inmates that are not attending an initial court appearance, will be moved to housing prior to an initial appearance, and those transferred to housing from the ID Unit. (Doc. 86, Ex. 9 at ¶ 1SD.000014 ¶ V(A)(7)&(8).) Defendant Grimsey testified that there are no policies allowing an alternative to the BCI for a person unable to complete it. (Doc. 86, Ex. 11 at 20-21.) Defendants averred that a BCI may vary and "should be tailored to the circumstances presented to ensure safety of all involved." (Doc. 86, Ex. 8 at 2 ¶ 1.)

Defendant Dorsey took Gracia into the shower area with another female officer, Erica McShea, while Defendant Grimsey stayed behind a partition. (Doc. 95, Ex. 3 at 30, 41.) PCADC policy details the substance of a BCI at that facility, and includes that the person "squat down and cough several times. . . . stand up and bend forward at the waist and spread their buttocks." (Doc. 86, Ex. 9 D1SD.000020 ¶ VII(D)(2)(c).) Defendant Dorsey documented that Gracia had a "defiant and argumentative attitude." (Doc. 86, Ex. 4 at 55.) The female officers conducted several parts of a visual BCI. (Doc. 86, Ex. 3 at 30-31, Ex. 4 at 55.) Gracia bent over a little but told the officers that, due to back issues, she could not bend over, cough, and squat, as they had directed. (Doc. 86, Ex. 3 at 30, 31; Doc. 95, Ex. B at 27-28.) Defendant Dorsey documented that Gracia refused to comply with the remainder of the BCI. (Doc. 86, Ex. 4 at 55.) It occurred to Defendant Dorsey that Gracia may not be able to bend over due to back pain. (Doc. 86, Ex. 3 at 33.) Gracia testified that Defendant Dorsey pushed her on the back, causing her pain, and she fell to the floor with a cry. (Doc. 95, Ex. B at 28.) In contrast, Defendant Dorsey testified that Gracia turned angrily to Officer McShea, and the two officers took Gracia to the floor. (Doc. 86, Ex. 3 at 31, 34-35, 41, 45, Ex. 4 at 54-55.) Defendant Grimsey entered the shower area and, upon seeing that Gracia was refusing to give up her arms in a struggle, he testified that he activated his taser and told her he would use it if she did not put her hands on her back. (Doc. 86, Ex. 11 at 18; Doc. 95, Ex. B at 28.) Gracia was covered with a smock and taken to a cell. (Doc. 86, Ex. 4 at 54-55.)

Defendant Grimsey testified that, when an inmate refuses a search, it creates a threat that contraband may enter the facility and cause harm to the inmate or others. (Doc. 86, Ex. 11 at 15, Ex. 9 at ¶ 1SD.000010.) In that event, the person will be placed in a restraint chair or on a restraint board. (Doc. 86, Ex. 11 at 13-14.) Defendant Dorsey testified that, when an inmate does not cooperate, staff will strap them down until they are calm and agree to comply with the procedures. (Doc. 86, Ex. 3 at 17.) PCADC policy allows use of a restraint chair for new inmates that fail to comply with the search process. (Doc. 86, Ex. 9 at ¶ 1SD.000007 ¶ V(C)(5).) While an inmate is in restraints, officers shall conduct rounds every 15 minutes and, when it is practical, will provide opportunities for water and use of the restroom, and the changing of position every two hours. (Id. at 000006 ¶ V(B)(6)(a)&(b), 000007 ¶ V(D)(3).) If an inmate is in a secured cell, she should not be restrained if she does not have the means to carry out a threat of violence against herself or others. (Id. at 000004 ¶ D(1).)

Defendant Grimsey directed that Gracia be placed on a four-point restraint board, which occurred at approximately 4:30 a.m. (Doc. 86, Ex. 4 at 054.) He documented that Gracia was placed on a restraint board because she refused to complete the BCI and he was concerned about...