Espinosa v. Gittere
What’s at Stake
Judge-made immunity doctrines like sovereign and qualified immunity make litigating claims against government actors difficult, but especially difficult for the two million people locked up in state and federal prisons, jails, and immigration detention facilities across the United States and who already struggle to obtain representation to protect their rights.
Summary
Benjamin Espinosa was incarcerated at Ely State Prison between 2019 and 2021. He was held in protective custody because he was at risk of being targeted by other individuals in the facility. While incarcerated, he filed a suit alleging Eighth Amendment and First Amendment violations against a series of officials who work in Ely State. His claims arose from allegations that (1) people incarcerated in general population were poisoning the food prepared for protective custody inmates, and the defendants were deliberately indifferent to those actions, and (2) defendants retaliated against Benjamin after he complained about receiving contaminated food.
Benjamin claims that his food (and the food of others held in protective custody) was contaminated with feces and an undetectable cleaning detergent, and as a result, he and other individuals experienced vomiting, acid reflux, severe heartburn, and tongue numbness. He and others complained to staff, who investigated the allegations, but did not take meaningful action to stop further tampering and poisoning. Benjamin also claims that he was retaliated against for continuing to report the ongoing problems with contaminated food: two days after complaining there was a metal wire in his meal, he was forcibly extracted from his cell and relocated to the infirmary for thirteen days, where he could not participate in his programs.
Core Legal Problem
A magistrate judge initially recommended granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and a district court adopted that recommendation. Benjamin filed for reconsideration, and the district court judge denied the defendant’s motion, concluding the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. The appeal will be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Alongside Rights Behind Bars, we are representing Benjamin Espinosa in the appeal to ensure that an immunity barrier will not stop him from presenting his claims on the merits, obtaining the relief he seeks, and developing substantive law.