Granger v. Padilla

1

RYAN GRANGER, Plaintiff, v. JOSE PADILLA, BILLY MASSINGILL, DILLON SAMANIEGO, and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EDDY COUNTY D/B/A/ EDDY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants.

Civ. No. 2:20-cv-01075-JCH-JHR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

September 15, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case arises from an incident in which Plaintiff Ryan Granger a pretrial detainee, was violently assaulted by another inmate while detained at the Eddy County Detention Center. Being assaulted in a detention facility is not part of the penalty that criminal offenders must pay, but constitutional liability for jail officials for a failure-to-prevent-harm claim only attaches when the inmate is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and where the jail officials are deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S 825, 834 (1994). Defendants Jose Padilla, Billy Massingill Dillon Samaniego, and the Board of County Commissioners of Eddy County (“Eddy County”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity (ECF No. 47), arguing that Plaintiff cannot show that any of the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's rights or that it was clearly established that Defendants' actions violated his rights. Plaintiff opposes the motion. According to Plaintiff, summary judgment should be denied because the defense of qualified immunity does not apply to the facts here, and alternatively, that the Court should permit Plaintiff leave to obtain necessary discovery essential to opposing the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The Court, having considered the motion, briefs, evidence, and applicable law, concludes that the motion for summary judgment should be granted as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Padilla but denied as to the other Defendants at this time to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to conduct discovery under Rule 56(d).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Granger and Carrasco's admission into the Eddy County Detention Center

On May 28, 2020, Eric Carrasco (“Carrasco”) robbed and assaulted Ryan Granger (“Plaintiff” or “Granger”). (Defs.' Undisputed Fact (“UF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 47.)^[1] Granger reported the attack to the police, resulting in Carrasco being charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (knife), larceny over $500, and criminal damage to property over $1,000. (See Criminal Information, ECF No. 70-1; Granger Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 70-2.) Carrasco was booked into the Eddy County Detention Center (“ECDC”) as a result of the charges. (Granger Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 70-2.) On July 1, 2020, Granger was taken into ECDC custody. (Defs.' UF ¶ 2, ECF No. 47.)

B. ECDC's written policies and practices

Defendant Billy Massingill (“Massingill”) is ECDC's warden and chief administrator responsible for ECDC operations, supervision of inmates, and implementation of policies. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 58, ECF No. 70.) As chief administrator, he has control of the facility and is responsible for submitting proposed rules and regulations to the local governing body. (Id.) He can implement changes to policies to conform with legal standards without seeking Board approval. (Id.) Eddy County approved and adopted the policies that govern ECDC. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 59, ECF No. 70.) All ECDC employees must read the policies and procedures manual. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 60, ECF No. 70.)

1. Admissions, classifications, and housing assignments

ECDC promulgated policies on Admissions and Booking for detainees, Policy 200.4, which includes an orientation for detainees during which they are assessed and initially classified to ensure safety and security. (Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 47-2 at 10 of 51.) Pursuant to ECDC's Reception Policy 200.5, detainees “are assigned to initial holding settings according to their immediate security needs, physical and mental condition, and other considerations.” (Id. at 16 of 51.) A Classification Corporal, or in his absence, a Shift Supervisor, will make a permanent housing assignment for the detainee after assessing the detainee's behavior and charges. (See id.)

ECDC's Classification and Separation Policy 200.7 directs ECDC to classify each detainee in a way to ensure public safety and safe, humane treatment for the detainee by assessing the appropriate custody level and housing for a detainee during the first 72 hours of incarceration. (Id. at 17 of 51.) Classification Corporals are to conduct periodic reviews of a detainee's status as needed in response to changes in behavior and circumstances. (Id.) ECDC has three custody levels (maximum, medium, and minimum), and ECDC uses an initial Classification form with a custody assessment scale to establish the detainee's most appropriate custody level. (Id. at 17-18 of 51.) Detainees who are charged with high risk and/or violent offenses, have displayed serious behavioral problems, and pose known risks to themselves or others, among other things, should be classified as maximum-security and housed in secure, single cell housing. (See id. at 17.) Medium security inmates are housed in double or multi-occupancy cells, while minimum security inmates may be in open bay or dormitory housing areas, because the latter detainees pose no known or significant threat to security. (Id. at 17-18.) ECDC contains numerous housing units, some with open dormitories like the Gamma and Kappa pods. (See id. at 25-26 of 51; Pl.'s Ex. 11, ECF No. 70-11.)

Additionally, ECDC has restrictive housing units for detainees that need to be segregated from the general population for various needs, including detainees identified as potential or confirmed victims of sexual assault. (Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 47-2 at 19 of 51.) The restrictive housing policy does not include detainees who are testifying witnesses against anyone in the facility. (See id.) Detainees identified as a high risk of being sexually abused by another detainee must be placed in a cell or housing unit that provides a high level of supervision and minimizes contact with potential predators, including potentially a restrictive housing unit. (Id. at 20 of 51.) If a detainee is at any time identified as a victim or potential victim of sexual misconduct, the detainee shall be re-evaluated for appropriate housing within 14 days. (Pl.'s Ex. 24, ECF No. 7024 at 8 of 16.)

Staff completes an Initial Custody Assessment Scale Form to determine a detainee's proper custody level and housing assignment. (Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 47-2 at 20-21 of 51.) The screening forms contain “PREA CONCERNS” information for, among other things, potential risk of victimization, such as a detainee's young age, slight build, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, and prior sexual victimization. (See id. at 32 of 51.) Generally, ECDC classifies detainees in a manner that keeps them in separate pods or units from other inmates who are known to be incompatible with the inmate for various reasons. (Massingill Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 47-2 at 2 of 51.)^[2]ECDC, however, had no policy to keep known incompatibles from being housed in adjacent pods. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 17, ECF No. 70.) ECDC's warden reviews the Initial Custody Assessment Form that shows the detainee's classification assessment and housing assignment. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 25, ECF No. 70.) When a detainee's continued presence in the general population poses a serious threat to him, any administrator, shift supervisor, or assistant shift supervisor may order the detainee to administrative segregation. (Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 47-2 at 27 of 51.)

2. Supervision of Detainees

ECDC has a control center, which is the hub of all external and internal security and communication activity. (Pl.'s Ex. 28, ECF No. 70-28.) Major responsibilities of the control center officer include controlling the doors, grilles, and gates; monitoring radios, telephones, intercoms, closed circuit televisions, and other communications systems; recording all appropriate information in the control center log; and notifying the shift supervisor of any emergency or alarm signal from any of the monitoring systems or staff. (Id.) ECDC only assigned one officer to the master control, and that officer was responsible for monitoring 210 camera feeds on six monitors. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 13, ECF No. 70.) The master control officer was to “maintain constant observation of every unit occupied by staff, detainees and volunteers.” (Pl.'s Ex. 6, ECF No. 70-6 at 2.) The control center officer was also responsible for opening doors throughout the detention center, answering phone calls and intercom calls, and directing calls to the appropriate person in the facility. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 13, ECF No. 70.)

ECDC does not station corrections officers in a post in the Kappa or Gamma dormitories. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 9, ECF No. 70.) Instead, hallway officers are assigned make walkthroughs of the pods. (Pl.'s UF ¶ 10, ECF No. 70.) According to ECDC Policy 200.00, to facilitate personal contact with detainees, detention staff are directed to go into each housing unit and perform security checks at least every 30 minutes at irregular intervals. (Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 47-2 at 41-42 of 51.) Policy 200.00 instructs officers to make rounds and “directly observe each detainee in person at least twice per hour but no longer than 30 minutes per round on an irregular basis.” (Id. at 42 of 51.) Staff must document the supervision rounds and Shift Supervisors must inspect all unit logbooks to ensure supervision rounds are being made. (Id.)

The units have video kiosks for inmate use and an intercom for emergency use. (Defs.' UF ¶ 4, ECF No. 47.) However, it usually took inmates at least a day to get a response to requests made through the kiosk. (Granger Decl. ¶ 31, ECF No. 70-2.)

3. Annual...