Helen Romero v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections
673 F. App'x 641
9th Cir.2016Background
- December 28, 2006: inmate Anthony Beltran was fatally stabbed by cellmate Douglas Potter at Ely State Prison (Nevada). Potter had a history of violence and had threatened to harm cellmates.
- Helen Romero, Beltran’s mother, sued Nevada, NDOC, and multiple NDOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect) and asserted state wrongful-death and related claims (also on behalf of Beltran’s minor children).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; district court granted summary judgment on Romero’s § 1983 claims, remanded state-law claims to state court; Romero appealed only the § 1983 dismissal.
- The district court excluded much of Romero’s documentary evidence as unauthenticated; Romero did not timely authenticate it before the court’s order. Romero also sought to reopen discovery to depose witnesses and identify “doe” defendants; the district court denied further discovery.
- Majority: even if evidence were considered, Romero failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to deliberate indifference by the named defendants; several potentially responsible employees were never added as defendants.
- Concurrence/Dissent (in part): Chief Judge Thomas agreed on many points but argued the district court erred by sua sponte excluding discovery-produced documents (which can be authenticated by production) and that a genuine issue existed as to the Warden’s liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by excluding Romero's evidence at summary judgment | Exclusion was improper, especially sua sponte; documents produced in discovery authenticate themselves | District court properly required evidence be admissible/authenticated and Romero had notice but failed to authenticate | No abuse: Rule 56 allows sua sponte rulings after notice; Romero waived arguments and did not show admissibility; exclusion (if error) was harmless |
| Whether named defendants were deliberately indifferent to risk of attack (Eighth Amendment) | NDOC officials knew Potter’s threats/violent history and still housed him with Beltran; creates triable issue on deliberate indifference | No evidence linking most named defendants to the housing decision; many decisionmakers were not sued; some defendants lacked knowledge or involvement | Affirmed: No genuine dispute as to deliberate indifference by Director Whorton, Warden McDaniel (as to the majority), officers Howes/Stolk/Otero/Landon, or caseworkers Drain/Chambliss; qualified immunity for Officer Howes |
| Whether Romero’s children could assert § 1983 survival claims on behalf of Beltran | Children may assert claims as beneficiaries of decedent | Nevada law allows only executor/administrator to sue on decedent's behalf | Affirmed: children lacked proof of appointment; cannot maintain § 1983 survival claims |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to reopen discovery | Needed depositions to identify and add doe defendants; discovery was delayed/cancelled by defense scheduling | Plaintiff failed to diligently pursue discovery, had names from interrogatory responses in 2009 and did not amend complaint | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion—Romero failed to diligently pursue discovery or to show additional discovery would preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (authentication and admissibility at summary judgment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for prison officials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity and clearly established law)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994) (waiver of arguments not raised below)
- Panatronic USA v. AT&T Corp., 287 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for reopening discovery; diligence required)
- Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1998) (survivor-suit limitation under state law applied to § 1983)
- Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (prison duty to protect inmates from other inmates)
- Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1989) (policy liability requires a policy so deficient it repudiates rights)
- Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978) (§ 1983 adopts forum state survivorship law)
- Butler ex rel. Biller v. Bayer, 168 P.3d 1055 (Nev. 2007) (Nevada duty to protect inmates under state wrongful-death standard)