Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2

ANDREW P. THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY By: JOSEPH I. VIGIL State Bar No. 018677 [email protected] REBECCA SALISBURY State Bar No. 022006 [email protected] Deputy County Attorneys MCAO Firm No. 00032000

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 v.

CIVIL DIVISION Security Center Building 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 Telephone (602) 506-8541 Attorneys for Defendant Riddle IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Nathaniel Hearn Plaintiff, NO. CV03-1924-PHX-MHM (MEA) DEFENDANT PATRICK RIDDLE'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants.

Defendant Patrick Riddle, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 56.1, Local Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby submits his Separate Statement of Facts and supporting affidavits. ...
Document 361 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1.

The Plaintiff was housed in the Madison Street Jail in Maricopa County. He was initially housed in what is known as the Nature of Charges, or "NOC" unit of the jail due to the charges against him. (Affidavit of Patrick Riddle, ¶ 8, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)

2.

This is an area of the jail where certain inmates are kept for their own safety. The policy of the Sheriff's Office is that inmates being housed in this unit are kept in the unit unless they become a safety and security risk. This can happen if the inmate is determined to be violent (e.g. starts a fight or is involved in a fight of some kind). At that point his classification status can be revisited and the inmate would be moved out of NOC and placed into administrative segregation for the inmate's safety and to protect the other inmates. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 7; Affidavit of Darrell Browning, ¶ 6, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.)

3.

In this area of the jail the inmate has all of the same privileges as when the inmate was in the NOC unit except they are kept in their cell for 23 hours a day and give an hour out of their cell. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 7; Exhibit 2, ¶ 7.)

4.

On June 14, 2004 the Plaintiff was involved in a multi-inmate fight. Because of his involvement in the fight, a disciplinary action report "DAR" was written up by an Officer Zoutte. The DAR was reviewed by Sgt. Browning to make sure it was in proper form and Sgt. Browning, in

accordance with MCSO policy, recommended that the Plaintiff be Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA Document 362 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 8. 7. 6. 5.

reclassified and moved to administrative segregation. (Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 9 and 10; Exhibit 2, ¶ 4.) A hearing was held by the hearing officer and sanctions were issued. Plaintiff appealed the determination of the hearing officer; however, the determination of the hearing officer was sustained. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 11.) At the time of the incident the Plaintiff, for some reason, was not reclassified and moved in accordance with policy. It was not until there was a meeting with Lt. Kelly, Sgt. Riddle and Officer Glee that it was discovered that the Plaintiff should have been reclassified and moved in accordance with the recommendation of Sgt. Browning. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 13.) After that meeting, it was determined by classification, not Riddle, to have the Plaintiff reclassified and moved to administrative segregation. The Sergeants do not have the ability to reclassify and move inmates. At best, they can recommend reclassification based on the actions of the inmate. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 14; Exhibit 2, ¶ 9.) Sergeant Riddle at one point did investigate a grievance of the Plaintiff's wherein he claimed that Detention Officer Glee had enlisted another inmate to beat up the Plaintiff. Sergeant Riddle remembers getting the grievance and a paper from the Plaintiff about his claim. However, he does not know what happened to the grievance or paper. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 15.)

Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA

Document 363

Filed 02/01/2007

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

9.

After investigating the allegations, Sergeant Riddle determined that there was no truth to the allegations against Officer Glee. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 15.)

10.

As far as any other write-ups, or DARs, Sgt. Riddle only was responsible for one other DAR pertaining to the Plaintiff. That DAR was dated 12-1-04 and it had to do with improper dress. The DAR was sent to a hearing officer and the hearing officer did not find that the Plaintiff intentionally violated any jail rules or regulations. (Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 17 and 18.)

11.

There was one other DAR that was reviewed by Sgt. Riddle. It was dated June 9, 2004, prior to the fight that the Plaintiff was involved in, and it was authored by detention officer A7950. Sgt. Riddle reviewed the DAR and passed it on to the hearing officer. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 19.) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this __1st__ day of February 2007. ANDREW P. THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

BY: 16 17 18 19 20 ORIGINAL of the foregoing E-FILED and copies MAILED this _1st_ day of February 2007 to:

s/Joseph I. Vigil JOSEPH I. VIGIL REBECCA SALISBURY Attorneys for Sgt. Riddle

Honorable Mary H. Murguia United States District Court Judge 21 Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 525 401 West Washington Street, SPC 53 22 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA Document 364 Filed 02/01/2007

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Honorable Mark E. Aspey United States District Court Magistrate Judge 123 North San Francisco Street, Ste 200 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Nathaniel Hearn, #66155 ASPC Florence ­ MU Meadows Unit ­ Eyman #8A-32 P.O. Box 3300 Florence, AZ 85232 Plaintiff Pro Per

s/Michele Haney
CJ04-117 S:\COUNSEL\Civil\Matters\CJ\2004\Hearns CJ04-094\Pleadings\SOF to Support MSJ 1-31-07.doc

Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA

Document 365

Filed 02/01/2007

Page 5 of 5