Green v. Padilla

697 F.Supp.3d 1115

Dawn GREEN; Andrea Gallegos and Sasha Dominguez, Plaintiffs, v. Officer Christopher PADILLA; Justin N. Sanders, Officer;Malcom J. Gonzales, Former Warden; John Sanchez, Former Warden;Ebeth Cruz-Martinez, Former Warden; Marianna Vigil, Warden,and Robert Gonzales, Captain, Defendants.

No. CIV 19-0751 JB/JFR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Filed October 6, 2023

Erlinda O. Johnson, Law Office of Erlinda Ocampo Johnson, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico -- and -- Justine Fox-Young, Justine Fox-Young, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dawn Green, Andrea Gallegos, and Sasha Dominguez.

Douglas E. Gardner, Robles, Rael, & Anaya, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendants Christopher Padilla, Justin N. Sanders, and Malcolm J. Gonzales.

Michael Dickman, Law Office of Michael Dickman, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendants John Sanchez, Ebeth Cruz-Martinez, Marianna Vigil, and Robert Gonzales.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND AMENDED ORDER¹

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant John Sanchez's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed November 19, 2020 (Doc. 43)("MSJ"); (ii) Sanchez' Motion to Stay Discovery Based on Qualified Immunity, filed December 2, 2020 (Doc. 46)("Stay Motion"); and (iii) Declaration of Erlinda O. Johnson, Esq. Requesting Limited Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 56(D), to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment based on Qualified Immunity, filed December 21, 2020 (Doc. 50-5)("Rule 56(d) Decl."). The Court held a hearing on the motions on August 18, 2021. Clerk's Minutes at 1 (taken August 18, 2021), filed August 18, 2021 (Doc. 68). The primary issues are: (i) whether John Sanchez is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff Dawn Green's constitutional violation claims, including whether: (a) Green satisfies the elements of a claim under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (b) it is clearly established that deliberate indifference to a prison guard's sexual abuse violates the Eighth Amendment or is particularly egregious; (ii) whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact pertinent to Green's claim that Sanchez violated her Eighth Amendment rights through his deliberate indifference to a prison guard's sexual abuse and through inaction; (iii) whether discovery should be stayed; and (iv) whether Green's request for discovery under rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate based on the necessity of further discovery. On the facts presented and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Green as the non-moving party, the Court concludes that: (i) Sanchez is not entitled to qualified immunity for the Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual punishment claim, because Green has met her burden of demonstrating that the right to be free from deliberate indifference to sexual assault in prison was clearly established at the time of the alleged incident, and because deliberate indifference to prison rape is particularly egregious such that no reasonable officer could conclude it does not offend the Constitution; (ii) Sanchez is not entitled to summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment violation claim, because there is a dispute regarding whether he had subjective knowledge about the high risk of sexual assault to female inmates, including to Green specifically, in Springer Correctional Facility ("Springer Correctional") in Springer, New Mexico, and whether the actions, or lack thereof, he took after learning of Padilla's alleged sexual misconduct allowed Padilla's further sexual abuse of Green; (iii) the case will not be stayed, because the Court concludes that Sanchez is not entitled to qualified immunity; and (iv) Green is not entitled to discovery under rule 56, because the discovery is unnecessary to defend against the MSJ. Accordingly, the Court will (i) deny the MSJ; (ii) deny the Stay Motion; and (iii) deny Green's request for limited discovery under rule 56(d).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from a prison guard's alleged sexual assault on an inmate. See Complaint for Civil Rights Violations, State Tort Claims and Damages, ¶ 28-76, at 4-8, filed August 15, 2019 (Doc. 1)("Complaint"). The Court takes its facts from the MSJ; Plaintiff Dawn Green's Response to Defendant John Sanchez's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed December 21, 2020 (Doc. 50)("Response"); and Defendant John Sanchez' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed February 04, 2021 (Doc. 58)("Reply"). Many of the facts are disputed. The Court states in the text the undisputed material facts and the disputed facts that the Court must draw in the non-movant's favor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Court states the disputed facts and the purportedly disputed facts in the footnotes.

1. Background.

Sanchez began working for the State of New Mexico Corrections Department ("NMCD") in 1995 and remains an NMCD employee today. See MSJ ¶ 1, at 6 (asserting this fact)(citing Affidavit of John Sanchez ¶ 5 at 2, (dated November 18, 2020), filed November 19, 2020 (Doc. 43-1)("Sanchez Aff.").² Sanchez served as warden of Springer Correctional from 2012 through April 17, 2017, "after which date he no longer had any duties related to [Springer Correctional] and did not work at the facility." MSJ ¶ 1, at 6 (asserting this fact); see Sanchez Aff. ¶ 5, at 2.³ Springer Correctional's chain of command dictates that correctional officers "report[ ] to Sergeants, who in turn report[ ] to Lieutenants, who in turn report[ ] to the Captain, who in turn report[ ] to two Unit Managers, who in turn report[ ] to the Warden." MSJ ¶ 2, at 7 (asserting this fact).⁴

During his tenure as warden, Sanchez "operated the facility with a 50% staff vacancy rate." Response ¶ 1, at 7 (asserting this fact). See Videotaped Deposition of John Sanchez at 44:14-22 (dated November 4, 2020), filed December 21, 2020 (Doc. 50-1)("Sanchez Depo. I"); Reply ¶ 1,⁵ at 15-16 (admitting this fact).⁶ This vacancy rate forced staff to work "significant overtime" and caused them to "perform[ ] poorly on the job due to sleep-deprivation." Response ¶ 2, at 7 (asserting this fact). See Zoom Videoconference and Videotaped Deposition of Christopher Padilla at 67:20-68:9 (taken November 6, 2020), filed December 21, 2020 (Doc. 50-4)("Padilla Depo. I").⁷ In addition, Springer Correctional "has historically employed very few female correctional officers -- in fact, a large proportion of days show no female officers at all on the premises -- meaning that the inmates are mainly supervised by male correctional officers and therefore far more likely to be subjected to sexual abuse." Response ¶ 4, at 7 (asserting this fact). See Padilla Depo. I at 48:10-49:3; id. at 68:21-69:20.⁸

Springer Correctional and NMCD "maintain[ ]" a written, "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits abuse, sexual misconduct, and any type of sexual relationship between employees and inmates. MSJ ¶ 4, at 7 (asserting this fact). See NMCD Policy CD-150100 and Procedures CD-150101, Offender Protection Against Abuse and Sexual Misconduct, at 4-9 (dated February 10, 2015), filed November 19, 2020 (Doc. 43-3)("NMCD Policy I"); Response ¶ 4, at 5 (admitting this fact).⁹ The written policy requires that employees and inmates immediately report any abuse or sexual misconduct that they experience or witness, and that the reporting person shall not be subject to retaliation for doing so. See MSJ ¶ 4, at 7 (asserting this fact); NMCD Policy I at 4-9. See Response ¶ 4, at 5 (admitting this fact).¹⁰ The policy also provides that any employee who fails to report abuse or misconduct "is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment." MSJ ¶ 4, at 7-8 (asserting this fact). See NMCD Policy I at 4-9; Response ¶ 4, at 5 (admitting this fact).¹¹ "[NMCD] [P]olicy CD-150102 requires a detention facility's administrator to separate a victim of sexual abuse from the assailant once sexual abuse is reported." Response ¶ 36, at 11 (asserting this fact). See NMCD Policy CD-150102 and Procedures CD-150101, Coordinated Response to Sexual Assaults, at 1 (dated February 10, 2015), filed December 21, 2020 (Doc. 50-3)("NMCD Policy II"); Reply ¶ 35, at 19 (admitting this fact). "[NMCD] policy also requires that upon report of a sexual assault incident, the Warden shall make an immediate report to the PREA coordinator." Response ¶ 36, at 11. See NMCD Policy II, at 1; Reply ¶ 35, at 19 (admitting this fact).

2. Green's Alleged Abuse at Springer Correctional.

In approximately January, 2017, Padilla "was working as a kitchen officer, in charge of overseeing inmates who worked in the kitchen," including Green. Response ¶ 10, at 8 (asserting this fact). See Reply ¶ 10, at 17 (admitting this fact). By the third week of January, 2017, Padilla began to "request 'trade-offs' from Ms. Green[,]" and began to "make comments about Ms. Green's breasts and the size of her nipples" during work sessions in the kitchen. Response ¶¶ 11-12, at 8-9 (asserting this fact). See Declaration of Dawn Green ¶ 2, at 7, filed December 21, 2020 (Doc. 50-2)("Green Decl."); Reply ¶¶ 11-15, at 17 (admitting this fact).¹² "Over a period of several weeks between February through March 2017," Padilla instructed Green to "show him her breasts so that he would allow her to take food back to her cell." Response ¶ 14, at 9 (asserting this fact). See Green Decl. ¶ 8, at 2; Reply ¶¶ 11-15, at 17 (admitting this fact).¹³ Green complied with Padilla's instruction and "would then proceed to the bathroom near the kitchen and she would show Padilla her breasts." Response ¶ 15, at 9 (asserting this fact). See Green Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, at 2; Reply ¶¶ 11-15, at 17 (admitting this fact).¹⁴

Then, "[i]n approximately the first week of February 2017, Officer Padilla began to take Jolly Rancher candies...