Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of America
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8885
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Labatad, a Hawaii inmate at SCC, sues over cell sharing with a rival-gang inmate after a prior fight.
- SCC allows housing of rival-gang members together; no policy mandating separation; housing decisions are case-by-case.
- Labatad and Mara (USO Family) shared a cell during investigation; Mara later assaulted Labatad.
- Labatad alleges deliberate indifference by CCA and SCC officials to the risk of such housing.
- District court granted summary judgment on the merits after addressing Rand notice issues; plaintiff appealed.
- Panel affirms, holding Rand notice error harmless and that no deliberate indifference evidenced by record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rand notice defect affects decision on summary judgment? | Labatad argues Rand notice required reversal. | Defendants argue district court's merits ruling stands despite delay. | No reversal needed; harmless error under Rand. |
| Whether housing with Mara violated Eighth Amendment standards? | Labatad contends deliberate indifference due to risk. | Defendants contend no evidence of substantial risk or disregard. | Summary judgment proper; no deliberate indifference shown. |
| Did defendants know of risk and disregard it? | Labatad suggested possible awareness from conversation evidence. | Record shows no specific awareness of substantial risk. | Record insufficient for subjective knowledge of substantial risk. |
| Was per se Eighth Amendment violation established by gang-based housing? | Labatad rejects per se rule, relies on deliberate indifference. | Defendants deny per se violation; case-by-case assessment allowed. | Not a per se violation; standard requires deliberate indifference. |
| Would the four inmate affidavits alter outcome? | Affidavits show prior incidents with rival gangs. | Affidavits lack personal knowledge or relevance. | Even considering them, outcome unchanged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand v. Rowland, 1 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rand notice required for pro se prisoners; timing matters; harmless error review limited to unusual cases)
- Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand notice must be timely with respect to motions; late notice can be harmless in unusual cases)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (Eighth Amendment duty to protect; deliberate indifference standard)
- Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (Eighth Amendment, protection standard; framework for deliberate indifference)
- Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rand notice and record-court procedure in exhaustion-related context)
- Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) (Evidence of risk requires knowledge; absence of disclosure undermines inference)