Quintero v. Aranas

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOHN QUINTERO, Case No. 3:17-cv-00066-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ROMEO ARANAS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff John Quintero, who is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada 12 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this action against Defendants1 under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 248 (“Complaint”)).2 Before the Court is the Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 15 270), recommending that the Court grant in part Defendants’ motion for summary 16 judgment (ECF No. 258 (“Motion”))3 as to the Eighth Amendment conditions of 17 confinement claim (Count VI) and deny in part the Motion as to the Fourteenth 18 Amendment equal protection claim (Count V). Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (ECF 19 No. 271 (“Objection”)),4 while Defendants did not. Plaintiff also objected (ECF No. 269) 20 to Judge Baldwin’s order (ECF No. 268) denying his motions for joinder (ECF Nos. 260, 21 262).5 Because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s analysis for the Motion and finds 22 23 1The remaining Defendants in this case include Isidro Baca, Perry Russell, Julio 24 Calderin, Donald Burse, and Harold Wickham. (ECF No. 258.)

25 2The Court notes that the Third Amended Complaint is the operative complaint. (ECF Nos. 247, 248.) 26 3Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 261), and Defendants replied (ECF No. 264) to the 27 Motion.

28 4Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s Objection. (ECF No. 272.) 2 Judge Baldwin’s R&R and overrule Plaintiff’s objections. 3 The Court incorporates by reference and adopts Judge Baldwin’s description of 4 the case’s background and relevant facts. (ECF No. 270 at 1-4.) The Court will first 5 address Plaintiff’s Objection to the R&R and then address his objection to Judge 6 Baldwin’s denial of his motions for joinder. 7 To start, Plaintiff objects to Judge Baldwin’s recommendation that Defendants’ 8 Motion should be granted as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement 9 claim (Count VI). (ECF No. 271 at 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Where a party timely 10 objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court is required to “make a de novo 11 determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made”). Plaintiff argues 12 that granting summary judgment violates fundamental fairness and undermines the spirit 13 of Stickney v. List,6 because the Stickney decision covered all new NDOC units, and the 14 NDOC broke an implied contract by refusing to apply Stickney to all units. (Id.) The Court 15 disagrees. First and most importantly, the Stickney opinion does not extend to Plaintiff’s 16 housing unit—the decision was clearly restricted to Units 1, 2, and 3 at the Northern 17 Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”), and Plaintiff was housed in Unit 10A when he filed 18 his Complaint. (ECF No. 248 at 10.) See Stickney v. List, Case No. 3:79-cv-00011-RCJ, 19 2018 WL 1858220, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2018). Second, Plaintiff failed to show that 20 Defendants knew of and disregarded a risk to his safety and that he suffered injuries due 21 to NNCC’s alleged staffing problems. (ECF Nos. 248, 258-8, 258-12.) See Farmer v. 22 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 677 (9th Cir. 2014). 23 Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s Eighth 24 Amendment rights based on conditions of confinement. 25

26 6Stickney is an unrelated District of Nevada case where United States District Judge Edward Reed found that “violence in Units 1, 2, and 3 at NNCC ‘exceed[ed] 27 constitutional standards’ and was due ‘essentially to understaffing’”; Judge Reed ordered a minimum number of correctional officers to be on duty at all times in those units. See 28 Stickney v. List, Case No. 3:79-cv-00011-RCJ, 2018 WL 1858220, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2 should be denied as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim (Count 3 V). (ECF No. 271 at 2-3.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants deliberately deprived him of 4 photos of the outdoor religious accommodations at NNCC. (Id. at 2-6.) Plaintiff states that 5 he would like to file his own motion for summary judgment when he receives these photos. 6 (Id. at 3.) The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection because Judge Baldwin found against 7 Defendants in the R&R on this claim and is recommending that the claim proceed to trial. 8 (ECF No. 270 at 8.) Moreover, the deadline for Plaintiff to file a summary judgment motion 9 has long passed and even if Defendants had produced the photos, Plaintiff fails to show 10 that he would be entitled to summary judgment on this claim or that resolution of summary 11 judgment hinges on the submission of these photos. (ECF Nos. 252, 271.) Accordingly, 12 the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objection and adopt the R&R. 13 Finally, Plaintiff objects to Judge Baldwin’s order denying his motions for joinder. 14 (ECF Nos. 260, 262, 268, 269.) See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (a 15 “district judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the 16 [magistrate judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”). In his motions, 17 Plaintiff seeks to have United States District Judge Robert C. Jones, the current 18 supervising judge in Stickney, preside over the claims in this case because of his 19 familiarity with the Stickney case and because this case concerns “novel” constitutional 20 questions. (ECF Nos. 260, 262.) Judge Baldwin correctly denied Plaintiff’s motions 21 because Judge Jones already found that the court cannot “re-litigate the underlying 22 constitutional question” in Stickney, and joinder would undermine the Court and parties’ 23 obligations to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and 24 proceeding.” See 2018 WL 1858220, at *2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Thus, Judge Baldwin did 25 not clearly err, and Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. 26 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 27 cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 28 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 1 || issues before the Court. 2 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 271) to the Report and 3 || Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin is overruled. 4 It is further ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5 || 270) is accepted and adopted in full. 6 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 258) 7 || is granted in part and denied in part, as described herein. 8 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 269) to Judge □□□□□□□□□ 9 || order (ECF No. 268) denying his motions for joinder (ECF Nos. 260, 262) is overruled. 10 It is further ordered that, under LR 16-5, the Court finds that it is appropriate to 11 || refer this case to Judge Baldwin to conduct a settlement conference. If the parties do not 12 || settle, the Joint Pretrial Order is due within 30 days of the date the settlement conference 13 || is held. 14 DATED THIS 13'" Day of February 2023. —_

16 nIKANDA 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28