United States District Court, D. Idaho
JERRY W. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
KEITH YORDY; SGT. BLAIR; CORIZON, INC.; SGT. RAMIREZ; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and KEVIN KEMPF, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
J. Lodge United States District Judge
Jerry W. Campbell is a prisoner currently in the custody of
the Idaho Department of Correction (“IDOC”).
United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale previously
reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and allowed him to proceed on the
following claims: (1) Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendants Yordy, Blair, and Kempf for failing to protect
Plaintiff from attack and for housing Plaintiff in unsanitary
conditions of confinement; and (2) Eighth Amendment claims
against Corizon-the private entity providing medical care to
inmates under contract with the IDOC-for understaffing in the
medical annex and for housing Plaintiff in (or failing to
transfer Plaintiff from) the medical annex despite unsanitary
conditions. (Dkt. 10 at 4-5.) Plaintiff was not allowed to
proceed on any other claims at that time.
case was later reassigned to the undersigned judge. Now
pending before the Court is Defendant Corizon's Motion
for Summary Judgment, which the IDOC Defendants have joined
and which is now ripe for adjudication. (Dkt. 22, 24).
Several other motions are also pending.
fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and
legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and
record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1. Accordingly, the Court enters the
following Order granting Defendants' Motion and
dismissing this case without prejudice for failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies.
MOTION TO REVIEW PAGES OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
order reviewing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court
previously determined that Plaintiff failed to state a
plausible due process claim based on his disciplinary hearing
and his placement in administrative segregation. (Dkt. 10 at
5.) In doing so, the Court erroneously stated that Plaintiff
had failed to allege the amount of time he spent in
administrative segregation. The Court had mistakenly
overlooked the fact that the Amended Complaint had alleged
that Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation for
10 days. (See Dkt. 9 at ECF p.13.) Therefore, the
Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to Review Pages of
the Amended Complaint and will reconsider Plaintiff's due
process claim under the screening standards set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process
prohibits the government from depriving an individual of a
liberty or property interest without following adequate
procedures. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558-66
(1974). A prisoner possesses a liberty interest in avoiding a
change in confinement-such as a transfer to restrictive
housing-only if that change imposes an “atypical and
significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The length of time an inmate spends
in restrictive housing is one factor in this analysis, along
with whether the segregation was essentially the same as
other forms of segregation, whether the change in confinement
constituted a major disruption in the inmate's
environment, and whether the length of the inmate's
sentence was affected. Id. at 486-87.
all of the Sandin factors together, the Court
concludes that the Amended Complaint does not plausibly
suggest that Plaintiff had a liberty interest protected by
the Due Process Clause. The small amount of time that
Plaintiff was confined in administration segregation-a mere
ten days-weighs heavily against finding a liberty interest,
and the length of Plaintiff's sentence was not affected.
These factors are not outweighed by the other Sandin
the Court reaffirms Judge Dale's conclusion that
Plaintiff has not stated a colorable due process claim based
on his disciplinary proceedings and his placement in
administrative segregation for ten days. The Court agrees
that the only plausible claims stated in the Amended
Complaint are Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
failure-to-protect and sanitation claims against Defendants
Yordy, Blair, and Kempf, and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
understaffing and sanitation claims against Corizon.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
IDOC Defendants have filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
Sur-reply to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Dkt. 35.) Defendants are correct that the sur-reply was not
authorized. However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the
sur-reply, along with all filings in this case. The Motion to
Strike will be denied.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
section includes facts that are undisputed and material to
the resolution of the issues in this case. Where material
facts are in dispute, the Court has included Plaintiff's
version of the facts.
has established a grievance process, which is attached as
Exhibit A-1 to the Affidavit of Jill Whittington, IDOC's
Grievance Coordinator (“Whittington Aff.”) (Dkt.
22-4). This grievance process consists of three stages.
First, any inmate with a concern is required to seek an
informal resolution by filling out an offender concern form
“addressed to the most appropriate staff member.”
(Whittington Aff., Dkt. 22-3, ¶ 5.) If the issue cannot
be resolved informally through the concern form, the inmate
must then file a grievance form. (Id.) A grievance
must be submitted within 30 days of the incident giving rise
to the grievance.
submitting a grievance form, the inmate must attach a copy of
the concern form, showing the inmate's attempt to settle
the issue informally; the grievance must also “contain
‘specific information including [the] nature of the
complaint, dates, places, and names.'”
(Id. ¶ 6.) When the Grievance Coordinator
receives a grievance, the coordinator enters the grievance
information into the Corrections Integrated System
(“CIS”), “an electronic database used to
track inmate grievances.” (Id.)
grievance coordinator then assigns the inmate grievance
“to the staff member most capable of responding to and,
if appropriate, resolving the issue.” (Id.)
That staff member responds to the grievance and returns it to
the coordinator. The coordinator then forwards the grievance
to a “reviewing authority.” In the case of a
medical grievance, the reviewing authority is the
“facility Health Services Administrator.”
(Id.) In other cases, the reviewing authority is
generally a deputy warden. The reviewing authority reviews
the staff member's response to the grievance and issues a
decision on the inmate's grievance. The grievance
decision is then returned to the inmate. (Id. at
inmate is not satisfied with the decision on a grievance, the
inmate may appeal that decision. (Id. ¶ 8.) If
the grievance involves a medical issue, the “appellate
authority” is the Health Services Director.
(Id.) In other cases, the appellate authority is the
warden of the prison. The appellate authority decides the
grievance appeal and the appeal form is returned to the
inmate. Not until the completion of all three of these
steps-concern form, grievance form, and grievance appeal-is
the grievance process exhausted. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
submitted only one grievance to prison authorities in the
last eight years. That grievance was submitted in May 2008
and was assigned Grievance No. IC 080000282. This grievance
requested a transfer of funds to Plaintiff's