Taylor v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 26, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02011
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * *

5 DONALD TAYLOR, Case No. 2:21-cv-02011-RFB-MDC

6 Plaintiff, ORDER

7 v.

8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Donald Taylor, ECF No. 11 47, and a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants William Hutchings and Kimberly McCoy, 12 ECF No. 53. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion and denies Plaintiff’s 13 Motion as moot. 14 15 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 16 This action brought by Plaintiff Donald Taylor, pro se, asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 based on alleged events which occurred while he was incarcerated at Southern Desert 18 Correctional Center (“SDCC”). On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and attached his Complaint. ECF No. 1. On August 24, 2022, the Court 20 screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and allowed his Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment 21 and conditions of confinement claims to proceed. ECF No. 8. The Clerk of Court filed the 22 Complaint. ECF No. 9. 23 On February 17, 2023, a mediation conference was held before Mediator Lydia Nussbaum. 24 A settlement was not reached. ECF No. 17. On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 25 Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 32. On February 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Maximiliano 26 Couvillier, III held a Motion Hearing at which Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Access Pages, 27 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and Motion for Sanctions were denied. ECF No. 41. On 28 October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 47. On November 27, 1 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 53. On June 16, 2025, Judge 2 Richard Boulware, II held a Motion Hearing regarding Parties Motions to Dismiss. ECF No. 66. 3 The Court’s Order follows. 4 5 II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS / BACKGROUND 6 Both Parties concede that there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts. Thus, the 7 Court makes the following findings of undisputed facts. 8 A. Undisputed Facts 9 i. Nevada Department of Corrections Operating Procedures 10 The Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) implements operating procedures (“OP”) 11 that translate administrative regulations into actionable steps and guidelines for daily operations 12 within correctional facilities. The Warden at SDCC is responsible for overseeing the 13 administration of OP 490 which governs housekeeping and sanitation at Southern Dessert 14 Correctional Center (“SDCC”). Additionally, the Warden at SDCC is responsible for overseeing 15 the administration OP 269.11 which governs health and sanitation standards for SDCC. 16 ii. Sanitation and COVID-19 at SDCC 17 On October 23, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a memorandum to 18 NDOC flagging deficiencies identified in an inspection of SDCC’s culinary facility. The 19 deficiencies noted in the memorandum included broken dishwashers and a lack of hot water. On 20 January 14, 2021, Defendant Hutchings authored an email to Deputy Director Williams stating 21 SDCC, “has hot water in the culinary for the first time in 9 years.” On July 6, 2021, the Department 22 of Health and Human Services issued a memorandum noting that the prison conditions at SDCC 23 were unsanitary. 24 In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic the governor of Nevada implemented special 25 restrictions to be enforced within state prisons to prevent the spread of COVID-19. On November 26 19, 2020, Defendant Hutchings received a memorandum notifying him of the restrictions. 27 Subsequently, Hutchings implemented new guidelines for the dormitory housing units at SDCC. 28 On November 20, 2020, an inmate infected with COVID-19 was moved into Plaintiff’s housing 1 unit. On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff tested positive for COVID-19. On March 21, 2021, Plaintiff 2 filed grievance 2006-31-16955 raising complaints about (1) social distancing practices at SDCC; 3 (2) Plaintiff’s COVID-19 symptoms; (3) Plaintiff’s need for cleaning supplies; (4) the lack of hot 4 water at the SDCC culinary. Grievance 2006-31-16955 was the only grievance filed by Plaintiff 5 that raised complaints regarding the lack of hot water in the culinary or SDCC’s response to 6 COVID-19. Furthermore, grievance 2006-31-16955 did not allege that Defendant McCoy 7 permitted an offender that she knew had COVID-19 to move into Plaintiff’s cell, or that this 8 contact was the cause of Plaintiff contracting COVID-19. 9 10 III. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A. Summary Judgement 12 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to 13 interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no 14 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When considering 16 the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light 17 most favorable to the non-moving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 18 2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show 19 that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken as a 20 whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine 21 issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation 22 marks omitted). “[W]here the party moving for summary judgment has had a full and fair 23 opportunity to prove its case, but has not succeeded in doing so, a court may enter summary 24 judgment sua sponte for the nonmoving party.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1176 (9th Cir. 25 2014). It is improper for the Court to resolve genuine factual disputes or make credibility 26 determinations at the summary judgment stage. Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 27 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). 28 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 A. Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment – Unsanitary Conditions 3 Plaintiff argues Defendant Hutchings subjected him to vile and unsanitary conditions that 4 constituted cruel and unusual punishment while he was housed at SDCC. Plaintiff asserts that the 5 Department of Health and Human Services (“DHS”) October 2020 memorandum identifying 6 broken dishwashers and cleaning equipment that had not been repaired in over four years is 7 evidence of the unsanitary conditions Plaintiff experienced. Plaintiff further asserts that the lack 8 of hot water in the culinary for nine years is evidence of the Eighth Amendment violations Plaintiff 9 was subjected to while in Hutchings’ custody. Hutchings argues that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 10 Cruel and Unusual Punishment claim fails because the lack of hot water and inoperable dish 11 washers in the SDCC culinary did not create unconstitutional conditions of confinement. He 12 asserts that Plaintiff has not shown any harm to himself or his property resulting from there not 13 being hot water in the culinary. Furthermore, Hutchings argues that Plaintiff has failed to show 14 that the cause of the delay in getting the hot water restored to the culinary was the result of his 15 malicious actions. For the following reasons the Court finds that the conditions of the SDCC 16 culinary did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 17 The Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has held that "'An institution's obligation under the 18 eighth amendment is at an end if it furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, 19 shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.'" Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 20 (9th Cir. 1981), quoting Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F.2d at 125. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246. 21 To succeed in raising an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, “[T]he deprivation 22 alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious” and “a prison official’s act or omission must 23 result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 24 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Furthermore, “[a] supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of 25 his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations or knew of the violations 26 and failed to act to prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability under [§]1983.” Taylor 27 v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 28 In this instance, Plaintiff does not allege that Hutchings deprived him of adequate food, 1 shelter, medical care, nor personal safety. He also does not provide any evidence that the lack of 2 hot water in the culinary caused him any harm. Additionally, although Plaintiff brings this Eighth 3 Amendment Claim against the Warden of SDCC, Defendant Hutchings, Plaintiff does not state 4 that Hutchings failed to remedy the alleged violation or directed the violation. In fact, in the email 5 Plaintiff cites in support of this claim, Hutchings states that the delayed repair was due to 6 longstanding financial concerns and discusses the actions taken that ultimately resolved the hot 7 water issue. The Court finds based upon the undisputed facts of the case that Plaintiff’s Eighth 8 Amendment claim against Defendant Hutchings fails as a matter of law. 9 B. Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment – Exposure to COVID-19 10 Plaintiff raises an Eighth Amendment Conditions of Confinement claim against Defendant 11 McCoy claim arguing Defendant McCoy knowingly transferred an inmate with COVID-19 into 12 his cell causing Plaintiff to contract COVID-19 as a result of the transfer. McCoy contends they 13 did not knowingly transfer an ill inmate into Plaintiff’s cell. McCoy asserts that they are not 14 responsible for inmate bed moves and never conducted tests for COVID-19 because covid tests 15 are exclusively conducted by SDCC medical staff. Furthermore, McCoy argues Plaintiff has not 16 shown that SDCC’s response to COVID-19 was unconstitutional. 17 The Supreme Court has held that to establish an Eighth Amendment conditions of 18 confinement claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) an “objectively, ‘sufficiently serious’” 19 deprivation, and (2) that Defendants acted “subjectively, with ‘deliberate indifference’” to this 20 deprivation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994)). 21 Eighth Amendment protections extend to conditions of confinement that are sure or very likely to 22 cause serious illness and needless suffering in the future like exposure to “infectious maladies.” 23 Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754, 765 (9th Cir. 2023). Involuntarily exposing inmates to 24 COVID-19 satisfies the Eighth Amendment’s objective prong. Id. 25 Plaintiff argues that McCoy knowingly placed an inmate with COVID-19 in his cell 26 without any basis for this assertion. McCoy contends that Plaintiff’s assertion is false because they 27 were not responsible for inmate bed moves nor COVID-19 testing policies at SDCC. While the 28 Ninth Circuit has held that involuntarily exposing inmates to COVID-19 satisfies the objective prong of the Farmer two-factor test for analyzing an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement 2) claims, the Court finds that McCoy did not voluntarily or involuntarily expose Plaintiff to COVID- 3 | 19 because McCoy was not responsible for inmate housing assignments. Likewise, the Court finds 4) that McCoy could not have acted with deliberate indifference regarding the placement of an inmate with COVID-19 in Plaintiff's cell because McCoy was not involved with inmate housing assignments. 7 Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that the McCoy’s actions or 8 | omissions led to Plaintiff contracting COVID-19. Thus, McCoy prevails as a matter of law on his Motion for Summary Judgment as it relates to this claim. 10 1] As the Court finds that Plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law, the Court need not reach 12 | the issue of qualified immunity as to the defendants or their argument regarding a failure to exhaust 13 | administrative remedies. 14 15 Vv. CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for 17 | Summary Judgment [53] is GRANTED without prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [47] is 19 | DENIED as moot. 20 This matter is now closed. The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment accordingly. DATED: September 26, 2025.

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28

-6-