United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken, United States District Judge
a former inmate at the Klamath County jail, filed suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged deliberate
indifference to his safety and serious medical needs.
Defendant Klamath County jail (the County) now moves for
summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
For the reasons set forth below, the County's motion is
granted and this case is dismissed.
August 8, 2016, plaintiff was booked into the Klamath County
jail for violating the terms of his probation. Carpenter Dep.
at 13, 16 (Warren Decl. Ex. 1) (ECF No. 44). On August 9,
2016, plaintiff and three other inmates were moved into
booking cell 3. Id. at 70-72; Bryson Decl.
and one of the inmates, Zachary Brennan, had a brief verbal
dispute. Carpenter Dep. at 72-73. Plaintiff then
"flipped off Brennan and lay down on his mattress with
his back to Brennan. Id. at 75, 77. After plaintiff
lay down, Brennan immediately attacked plaintiff and hit him
with a phone Brennan had been holding. Id. at 75.
Brennan was recorded hitting plaintiff twice with the phone
at the beginning of the fight before dropping it and
continuing to hit plaintiff. Bryson Decl. Ex. 1 @ 13:34:57.
inmate in cell 3 alerted the guards by knocking on the window
to cell 3, and three deputies entered the cell and broke up
the fight. Id. at 75; Bryson Decl. Ex. 1 @ 13:35:38.
the assault, plaintiff was transported to the hospital by
ambulance. Carpenter Dep. at 47, 80. Plaintiff was treated
for his injuries and returned to the jail. When plaintiff
returned, he was housed in booking cell 7 under medical
observation and remained there until he was released two days
later. Id. at 83, 85. The doctor at the hospital
told plaintiff to follow up with them in two days.
Id. at 81. After plaintiff was released from the
jail on August 11, 2016, he did not follow up with any
medical provider. Id. at 17, 81, 90.
officials filed a report with the Klamath County District
Attorney and Brennan was charged and convicted of assaulting
plaintiff. Carpenter Dep. at 50.
that fall, plaintiff was incarcerated in the Klamath County
Jail two more times, in October and December of 2016.
Id. at 103.
alleges that the Klamath County jail exhibited deliberate
indifference to his health and safety by failing to protect
him from assault and by failing to provide adequate medical
care after the attack. The County moves for summary judgment
on grounds that the evidence of record contradicts plaintiffs
claims and establishes no violation of his rights. To prevail
on its motion, the County must show that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The court
must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Torres v. City
of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011).
evaluate plaintiffs claims of deliberate indifference under
the Fourteenth Amendment because his status as a probation
violator is equivalent to that of a pretrial detainee.
Anderson v. Cnty. of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1312,
as amended on denial ofreh'g, 75 F.3d 448 (9th
Cir. 1995) (stating that the "convicted inmates'
challenge is evaluated under the Eighth Amendment, and the
pretrial detainees' challenge is evaluated under the
Fourteenth Amendment"); Weishaar v. Cnty. of
Napa, 2016 WL 7242122, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016)
(treating an arrested probation violator as a pretrial
detainee and analyzing claims under the Fourteenth Amendment)
(citing Ressy v. King Cnty., 520 F.3d App'x 554,
555 (9th Cir. May 22, 2013)).
indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment is shown when a
prison official knew or should have known that a detainee
faced a "substantial risk of serious harm" and
failed to take reasonable measures to abate the risk.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); see
also Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060,
1070-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert denied, Los
Angeles Cnty. v. Castro, 137 S.Ct. 831
(2017). Here, the record clearly shows that the
County was not deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs safety
or to his medical needs.
initial matter, plaintiffs claims are alleged solely against
the County, as the local governmental body and legal entity
in charge of the jail. See generally Am. Compl. (ECF
No. 17). "Liability may attach to a municipality only
where the municipality itself causes the constitutional
violation through 'execution of a government's policy
or custom[.]"' Ulrich v. City & Cnty. of San
Francisco,308 F.3d 968, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,436 U.S. 658,
694 (1978)). In other words, to hold the County liable,
plaintiff must show ...