Crane v. Yates et al
Filing
57
ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS To Deny Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docs. 31 , 54 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/14/2012. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
JAMES CRANE,
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02373-LJO-GBC (PC)
10
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
11
v.
12
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
13
Docs. 31, 54
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
I. Procedural History
17
On December 21, 2010, Plaintiff James Crane (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro
18
se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
19
Defendant Aguirre (“Defendant”) dumped Plaintiff out of his wheelchair. Doc. 1. On July 6, 2011,
20
Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claim against Defendant
21
for Eighth Amendment excessive force. Docs. 11, 12.
22
On August 9, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contemporaneously
23
with a notice as to how Plaintiff must oppose the motion in order to avoid dismissal, pursuant to
24
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) and Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir.
25
2012). Doc. 31. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, Declaration, Statement of
26
Undisputed Facts, and Statement of Disputed Facts. Docs. 37-40. On September 13, 2012, Plaintiff
27
filed a motion to file a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment concurrently
28
with filing his Supplemental Opposition. Doc. 42. On September 17, 2012, Defendant filed a Reply
Page 1 of 3
1
to Plaintiff’s Original Opposition. Doc. 44. On October 1, 2012, Defendant filed a statement of non-
2
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental opposition concurrently with filing a
3
Supplemental Reply. Docs. 47, 48. On October 4, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file
4
a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 52.
5
On October 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations,
6
recommending to deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as Plaintiff presented a genuine
7
dispute of material fact for trial. Doc. 54. On November 13, 2012, Defendant filed Objections. Doc.
8
55. On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Doc. 56.
9
II. Analysis
10
In Defendant’s objections, he argues that Plaintiff recanted his allegations during his inmate
11
appeal, which makes Plaintiff’s declaration self-serving. Def. Obj. at 3, Doc. 55. However,
12
Defendant does not present anything signed by Plaintiff stating that he recanted his allegations, only
13
the written report completed by the officer. Moreover, Defendant no longer has possession of the
14
videotape of the incident, which apparently prompted Plaintiff to recant his allegations. Thus, this
15
Court cannot simply accept Defendant’s declaration, without any signed document from Plaintiff
16
demonstrating he recanted, in addition to a lost videotape.
17
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff, at the most, only established de minimis force. Def. Obj.
18
at 3, Doc. 55. Plaintiff’s declaration states that on September 3, 2009, Defendant Aguirre dumped
19
Plaintiff from his wheelchair and struck him with it. Pl. Decl., Doc. 38. Plaintiff did not make any
20
allegations as to the extent of his injuries, if any, or present any medical records to this Court. In
21
Defendant’s reply, he submitted medical records from Plaintiff for June 2009 through October 2009.
22
The records mostly discuss complaints of valley fever and make no reference to any alleged incident
23
from September 3, 2009. See Def. Reply Ex. A. at 7-11, Doc. 44. Notwithstanding an apparent
24
absence in injury, in Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) the Supreme Court rejected the
25
notion that “significant injury” is a threshold requirement for stating an excessive force claim. The
26
“core judicial inquiry,” was not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather
27
“whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and
28
sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1177
Page 2 of 3
1
(2010) (per curiam); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319-321 (1986).
2
3
Based on Plaintiff’s declaration in opposition to the motion for summary judgment alleging
excessive force, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact for trial.
4
III. Conclusion
5
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de
6
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and
7
Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1.
10
The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 22, 2012, are ADOPTED, in full;
and
11
2.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 9, 2012, is DENIED.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:
b9ed48
December 14, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?