Escamilla v. Belin

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 FRANCISCO E. ESCAMILLA, Case No. 2:21-cv-00077-KJD-VCF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 BELIN, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#18). Plaintiff did 13 not file a response in opposition, and the time to do so has passed. For the reasons stated below, 14 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 15 I. Factual and Procedural Background 16 This a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Francisco E. Escamilla 17 (“Escamilla”), asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Escamilla brings a claim against 18 Defendants Michael Belin (“Belin”) and Correctional Officer Rowley. 1 19 On January 9, 2019, the prison administration ordered a prison cell search within Escamilla’s 20 unit at Ely State Prison (“ESP”), and it was announced that officers would be searching the cells 21 for pruno, which is prison wine.2 (#7, at 3). Escamilla was kept in the shower until the search 22 was completed. Id. Upon being escorted back to his cell, Escamilla alleges he arrived to find it 23 destroyed. Id. at 4. Escamilla further alleges that the destructive and disruptive nature of the 24 search was a violation of administrative regulations and operational procedures and that it was 25 retaliation for a prior grievance and lawsuit Plaintiff filed. Id. 26 27 1 Defendant Belin asserts that Correctional Officer Rowley has not been properly identified, as there are several Correctional Officers with the surname Rowley, and therefore, he is not a party to this motion. 28 2 The facts are taken from the Court’s Screening Order (#7). 1 On August 11, 2021, Escamilla brought suit against Defendants, Correctional Officers Belin 2 and Rowley, asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (#6). 3 Defendant Belin argues he is entitled to summary judgment, and qualified immunity, because 4 there is no evidence he violated any constitutional right. (#18, at 6-11). 5 II. Legal Standard 6 Summary judgment may be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 7 and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to 8 any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party 10 bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 11 477 U.S. at 323. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts 12 demonstrating a genuine factual issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 13 Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 14 To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must produce evidence of a genuine 15 dispute of material fact that could satisfy its burden at trial.” Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc., 16 911 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The failure to oppose a motion for summary 17 judgement does not permit the court to enter summary judgment by default, but the lack of a 18 response is not without consequences. Reberger v. Gutierrez, No. 2:21-CV-01250-CDS-VCF, 19 2022 WL 18024720, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2022) (citing Heineman v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 20 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2013). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), “If a party fails ... to 21 properly address another party's assertion of fact ... the court may ... consider the 22 fact undisputed for purposes of the motion” and “grant summary judgment if the motion and 23 supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is 24 entitled to it[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) & (3); Heinemann, 731 F.3d at 917. 25 III. Analysis 26 A. First Amendment Retaliation Claim 27 Escamilla alleges that Correctional Officers Belin and Rowley retaliated against him for 28 filing a previous grievance and lawsuit. Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file prison grievances and civil lawsuits. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2004). An inmate may establish a First Amendment retaliation claim by proving that “(1)... a state actor took some 3 | adverse action against [him] (2) because of (3) [his] protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled [his] exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Id. at 567-58. 6 There is no evidence that Belin retaliated against Escamilla. Escamilla simply asserts, 7 | without offering any evidence, that Belin destroyed his cell and told him that there are “special 8 | searches for inmates who file lawsuits against correctional officers.” (#7, 3-4). However, Belin 9 | has provided numerous exhibits that support a finding that the search was properly conducted, 10 | and that the prison’s own investigation found no retaliation or wrongdoing. (See #18-2:6). 11 | Furthermore, Escamilla’s formal grievances make no mention of any statement made to him by 12 | Belin. (See #18-3). The Court’s concern when evaluating a motion for summary judgment is 13 | whether there exists genuine issues of material fact for a juror to find in favor of the nonmoving 14 | party. Escamilla has failed to present any evidence that there are any disputed facts. Therefore, 15 | summary judgment is granted for Belin on the retaliation claim. ? 16 TV. Conclusion 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 18 | (#18) is GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter JUDGMENT for Defendant 20) Belin and against Plaintiff. 21) DATED this 31st day of August 2023. 22 | ™ 23 SS \— ™ 4 Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 | 3 Because Defendant is entitled to summary judgment, the Court foregoes addressing Defendant’s qualified immunity claim. -3-