Benita Palmer v. Salvador Vasquez
696 F. App'x 782
9th Cir.2017Background
- This is a prisoner § 1983 case challenging a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
- Plaintiffs allege Eighth Amendment violations arising from Smith’s double-cell housing with Anthony Taylor and from inadequate welfare checks at CCI Tehachapi.
- Defendants named include Correctional Officers Vasquez and Brown and Warden Holland; housing decision was not attributed to them.
- Evidence shows the housing arrangement was not the result of overcrowding and was not proven to be caused by the defendants.
- Plaintiffs contend a welfare-check policy existed or was deficient, and that officers’ failures to check on Smith violated his rights; the court evaluates policy and enforcement.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the housing of Smith with Taylor a constitutional violation by the defendants? | Smith was improperly housed with Taylor by defendants. | Housing decision not made by any defendant and not caused by overcrowding. | No liability; housing decision not attributable to defendants. |
| Did lack or deficiency of welfare-check policy violate the Eighth Amendment as to the defendants? | CCI had no welfare-check policy, or policy was deficient, causing deliberate indifference. | Plaintiffs failed to show a policy deficiency or causative link to Smith’s death; checks occurred in routine processes. | Plaintiffs failed to show policy deficiency or moving force; no § 1983 liability for Holland, Vasquez, or Brown. |
| Do Plaintiffs’ familial-association claims survive under the Eighth Amendment? | Familial rights extend via Eighth Amendment violation. | Claim premised on Eighth Amendment violation; fails when underlying claim fails. | Premise fails; familial-association claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. Skol, 776 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2015) (duty to protect inmates and deliberate indifference standard)
- Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2013) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement or strong causal link)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court 1994) (minimal safeguards required to avoid substantial risk to inmate health/safety)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (Supreme Court 2017) (§ 1983 liability; supervisory vicarious liability limitations)
- Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2017) (de novo review of summary judgment; standard clarified)