Pangelinan v. DOC

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 FRANK E. PANGELINAN, ) ) 4 Plain tiff, ) CASE NO. CV0187-06 ) 5 v. ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND 6 ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) 7 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) 8 AS AN INSTRUl\tiENTALITY OF THE ) GOVERNMENTOFGUAM, ) 9 ) Defendant. 10 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III, on II September 30, 2013 for a Bench Trial. Attorney Jeffrey A. Cook represented 12 Plaintiff Frank Pangelinan. Attorney William Bischoff represented Defendant 13 Department of Corrections ("Department"). The Court now issues its Findings of 14 Fact and Conclusions of Law. 15 FINDINGS OF FACT 16 1. Plaintiff Frank E. Pangelinan is an inmate at the Department of Corrections. 17 2. On August 29, 2003, Plaintiff was the victim of an attack committed by 18 another inmate, Joaquin Camacho. 19 3. On August 29, 2003, Plaintiff was assigned quarters in what is known in the 20 Department as Post 18, a dormitory-like living area where inmates live in 21 cubicles rather than cells. 22 4. At the time the attack took place, Plaintiff and others m Post 18 were 23 scheduled for recreation time. 24 5. While Plaintiff was seated in his cubicle working on a project, Joaquin Camacho approached him from behind and hit him on the top of his head

26 with the bar for a dumbbell.

27 6. Plaintiff was struck twice, requiring observation at the prison infirmary, a visit to the Guam Memorial Hospital, a CT scan, and fifteen stitches. 28 Decision and Order Case No. CV0187-06

7. Since the attack, Plaintiff suffered physical and mental/emotional damages in 2 that he has constant headaches, insomnia, and paranoia. 3 8. Plaintiffs headaches are so severe as to warrant daily medication. 4 9. There is no medical indication that Plaintiffs headaches will cease in the 5 future.

6 10. Plaintiff continues to be treated for his insomnia and paranoia.

7 11. Dumbbells are located outside of Post 18 in the recreation area and are not

8 allowed inside Post 18. 12. Pat-downs are conducted at the entrance to Post 18. 9 13.At the time of the attack, two corrections officers were working in Post 18. 10 14. Neither Plaintiff nor the Department were aware that Camacho had 11 intentions of harming Plaintiff. 12 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13 1. Under a cause of action for negligence, an injured party must prove the 14 following elements to prevail: a) that the tortfeasor had a duty to act in a 15 manner that does not place others in an unreasonable risk of harm; b) that 16 duty was breached; c) as a result of that breach it is the cause; d) of harm or 17 damages suffered by a party. Guerrero v. DLB Const. Co., 1999 Guam 9 at~ 18 14 (citing Restatement (Second) Torts §§ 281 and 282 (1988)). 19 2. Duty. Jailers owe to prisoners placed in custody a duty to keep the prisoner 20 safely and free from harm. See Thomas v. Williams, 105 Ga.App. 321, 124 21 S.E.2d 409 (Ga.App. 1962). "[C]ourt after court after court has recognized 22 that jailers owe prisoners a duty of care to protect them from foreseeable 23 harm." Giraldo v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 168 24 Cal.App.4th 231, 252 (2008). Here, Plaintiff was in the custody of the 25 Department of Corrections at the time of the injury. Thus, the Department

26 had a duty to protect him from foreseeable harm.

27 3. Defendant frames the foreseeability question as whether the Department

28 could know that inmate Joaquin Camacho would attempt to injure Plaintiff on or about the date in question. The Court concludes that such a framing of 2 Decision and Order Case No. CV0187-06

foreseeability is too narrow and it is enough that the Department know that 2 one inmate could injure another at any time. The foreseeability aspect of the 3 duty element is met. 4 4. Damages. As discussed supra, Plaintiff Pangelinan suffered damages 5 resulting from Camacho's attack. This element of negligence is met. 6 5. Breach. Plaintiffs basis for a finding of a breach of the Department's duty is

7 1) a bar for a dumbbell, which should not have been located within Post 18,

8 was used in the attack; and 2) that there were only two officers on duty at

9 Post 18 during the time of the attack. Plaintiff has not shown that the Department breached its duty. The fact that a weapon was used in the 10 commission of the attack does not, in itself, constitute a breach of duty. II Correctional facilities constantly pat-down inmates and sweep for 12 contraband. Yet, makeshift weapons continue to be used by prisoners. Here, 13 there was no showing that the Department breached its duty by, for example, 14 not patting down Joaquin Camacho at the entrance to Post 18. Similarly, the 15 fact that two officers were working in Post 18 is not, in itself, a breach of 16 duty. Although evidence was presented that having three to five officers in 17 the Post would be better, the Court is disinclined to conclude that two officers 18 is a breach. Exhibit 4, Standard Operating Procedures for Post 18, shows 19 that Post 18 is to be manned by no less than three officers at all times. 20 However, these procedures were issued on September 29, 2008; 21 approximately five years after the attack on Pangelinan. No evidence was 22 presented that this directive was in place at the time of the attack. Thus, it 23 is the conclusion of this Court that there was no breach of duty on the part of 24 the Department. 25 6. Because this Court finds that no breach occurred, there is nothing to analyze 26 under the causation element of the negligence claim.

27 7. Plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof in bringing a negligence claim and

28 did not satisfy the breach element. Therefore, the Court finds Department not liable for damages to Plaintiff resulting from the incident in question. 3 Decision and Order Case No. CV0187-06

CONCLUSION 2 Based on these findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court finds 3 Defendant not liable and that judgment shall be entered for Defendant. Defendant 4 hereby ordered to submit a judgment consistent with this Decision, approved by 5 Plaintiff as to form. 6

7 It is SO ORDERED this 22nd day of Jan

10 HONORABLE A 11

ORIGiNAL