Garland v. Stanley, et al.

Filing 48

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Grant Defendants' 25 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/30/15. Referred to Judge Ishii; 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND ,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.
C. STANLEY, et al.,

16

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01755-AWI-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 25)

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

21

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

22

Defendants Lindsey, Nickell, Stanley, and Doe on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

23

conditions of confinement claim. (ECF Nos. 6 & 8.) Defendants Lindsey, Nickell, and

24

Stanley were served and have appeared in the action. (ECF Nos. 12 & 15.) Defendant

25
Doe has not been identified.
26
27
28

On August 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
25.). Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 5, 2015 (ECF No. 42). Defendants filed a reply

1

1

on March 19, 2015. (ECF No. 46.)

2
3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

4
Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary
5
6

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

7

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Wash.

8

Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position,

9

whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to

10
11

particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions,
documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not

12
13
14

establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The

15

Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not

16

required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist.,

17

237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001).

18
19

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, he
must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for

20
21

him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants

22

do not bear the burden of proof at trial and, in moving for summary judgment, they need

23

only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s case. In re Oracle Corp.

24

Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010).

25
26

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court may not make
credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984,

27
and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
28
2

1

determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite

2

de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir.

3
4

2011). However, “conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is
insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment.” Angle v.

5
6
7

Miller, 673 F.3d 1122, 1134 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984).
III.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

8

The Court finds that the following facts are undisputed:

9

On October 27, 2010, Plaintiff was transported from Calipatria State Prison to CCI

10

Tehachapi. (ECF No. 25-2, at 1.)

11

Plaintiff was given a “sack lunch” at 7:30 am and the bus left at around 8:05 am.

12
At some point during the bus ride, Plaintiff realized he had diarrhea. (ECF No. 25-

13
14

2, at 2.)

15

Plaintiff attempted to use the bus bathroom. (ECF No. 25-2, at 2.)

16

Plaintiff wore handcuffs, waist chains, and leg irons on the bus. (ECF No. 25-2, at

17

2.)

18
19

Upon arrival at CCI Tehachapi at around 6:00 pm, Plaintiff’s leg irons were
removed and he and roughly ten other inmates were led into the facility, a process that

20
21
22

took between 30-45 minutes. He was then placed in an individual holding “cage” to
await a strip search. (ECF No. 25-2, at 3.)
As part of the strip search, Plaintiff had to “squat and cough.” (ECF No. 25-2, at

23
24
25
26

3.)
Plaintiff did not defecate when he went through this stage of the strip search.
(ECF No. 25-2, at 3.)

27
28
3

1
2
3

Plaintiff told Officer Nickell he needed to use the bathroom as soon as possible.
(ECF No. 25-2, at 4). Officer Nickell made no response. (Id.)
Approximately 10 minutes later, Plaintiff defecated in the holding cage. (ECF No.

4
25-2, at 4; ECF No. 25-7, at 19).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Defendant Lindsay gave Plaintiff paper towels and splashed disinfectant into the
cell. (ECF No. 25-2, at 4.)
Defendant Doe got a hose and sprayed cold water onto Plaintiff’s pelvic area and
legs. (ECF No. 25-2, at 4).
At this point, all Plaintiff was wearing was a T-shirt and his tennis shoes. (ECF No.
25-2, at 4).

12
13
14

Plaintiff was able to dry himself with paper towels. (ECF No. 25-2, at 4).
Ten minutes later, Plaintiff was escorted to the holding cell where he was to

15

spend the night. The rest of the inmates were taken to administrative segregation, in a

16

different part of the prison. (ECF No. 25-2, at 4.)

17
18
19

The holding cell where Plaintiff stayed had a toilet, sink, and bench. (ECF No. 252, at 5.) It also had running water. (ECF No. 25-7, at 32-33.)
Plaintiff was only wearing tennis shoes and a T-shirt when he arrived at the

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

holding cell. Defendant Lindsey threw Plaintiff a pair of boxer shorts, but Plaintiff refused
to wear them because they appeared to be soiled. (ECF No. 25-2, at 5.)
When defendants’ shift ended, Plaintiff did not ask the next on-duty guard for
clean shorts or a blanket. (ECF No. 42, at 9.)
Plaintiff did not ask to see medical staff at CCI, but he asked a passing nurse for
diarrhea medication, which the nurse said he did not have (ECF No. 25-2, at 5-6.)

27
Plaintiff left CCI the next morning at around 6 or 6:30 am. (ECF No. 25-2, at 6.)
28
4

1
2
3

Plaintiff was provided with clothing, including a new paper jumpsuit, prior to
departure. (ECF No. 25-7, at 32).
Plaintiff did not seek medical attention at Lancaster, the prison to which he was

4
being transported. (ECF No. 25-7, at 33.)
5
6

IV. LEGAL STANDARD – EIGHTH AMENDMENT

7

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane conditions of

8

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer

9

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347

10
11

(1981)).

Conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh;

however, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan,

12
13
14

465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). Conditions
devoid of legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of decency

15

violate the Eighth Amendment. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002); Rhodes, 452

16

U.S. at 346; Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

17
18
19

Eighth Amendment claims have both subjective and objective components. An
inmate must show that prison officials subjectively acted with deliberate indifference to
his health and safety, thereby objectively depriving him of the minimal civilized measure

20
21
22

of life's necessities. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996)(citing Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303-303 (1991); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347).

23

A. Subjective Prong

24

To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must know of and disregard an

25

excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (1994); Thomas v.

26

Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-

27
14 (9th Cir. 2009); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 734 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, to make
28
5

1

a cognizable conditions of confinement claim, a plaintiff must show that defendants “had

2

actual knowledge of plaintiff’s basic human needs and deliberately refused to meet those

3
4

needs. Whether an official possessed such knowledge ‘is a question of fact subject to
demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence.’”

5
6

Johnson, 217 F.3d at 734 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842).

7

1. Verbal Harassment

8

Verbal harassment or insults can demonstrate the subjective state of mind of a

9

prison official. See Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1997)(suggesting

10

that prison officials would act with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind” where they

11

intended to humiliate inmate). However, insults alone are not sufficient to meet the

12
13
14

objective prong of the Eighth Amendment test. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1113
(9th Cir. 2012)(citing Somers, 109 F.3d at 622)(disapproving of “the exchange of verbal

15

insults between inmates and guards,” but concluding it was “a constant, daily ritual

16

observed in this nation’s prisons” that did not violate the Eighth Amendment); cf. Hope v.

17

Pelzer, 536 U.S. at 738 (guards’ taunting and deprivation of bathroom breaks, which

18
19

heightened risk of humiliation, contributed to finding an Eighth Amendment violation).
B. Objective Prong

20
21

The “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” includes adequate shelter,

22

food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731

23

(quotation marks and citations omitted). An inmate’s right to sanitation includes a right to

24

personal hygiene supplies. Keenan, 83 F.3d 1083, at 1091. The time period during

25

which an inmate is deprived of a basic necessity is important in determining whether the

26
27

deprivation was unconstitutional. Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir.
2013) (citing Hutto v. Finney , 437 U.S. 678, 686-687 (1978) for the proposition that “a

28
6

1

condition of confinement which does not violate the Eighth Amendment when it exists for

2

just a few days may constitute a violation when it exists for ‘weeks or months’”); Hearns

3
4

v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2005). However, “the more basic the need,
the shorter the time it can be withheld.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731(citations omitted); see

5
6

also Hope, 536 U.S. at 738 (finding “obvious” Eighth Amendment violation where plaintiff

7

was handcuffed to a hitching post in the Alabama sun for 7 hours, during which time he

8

was not given water or allowed to use the bathroom). “Minor deprivations suffered for

9

short periods of time will not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, but

10

‘substantial deprivations of shelter, food, drinking water, and sanitation may meet the

11

standard despite their even shorter duration.’” Jacobs v. Quinones, No. 1:10-cv-02349

12
13
14

WL 144234, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013)(citing Johnson, 217 F.3d at 729-730).
1. Exposure to Chemicals

15

A brief, one time exposure to disinfectant or other chemical does not amount to an

16

Eighth Amendment violation where there is no allegation that the exposure caused harm

17

or pain and no evidence to suggest that Defendants intended to cause pain. See

18
19

Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, at 904 (9th Cir. 2002)(four hour-long exposure to
pepper spray violated Eighth Amendment where inmates suffered pain and made

20
21

repeated requests for medical care); Harris v. Kim, 483 F. App’x 329 (9th Cir.

22

2012)(exposure to corrosive chemical gave rise to Eighth Amendment claim where

23

defendants knew of its dangerous properties and inmate was seriously injured);

24

McDaniels v. Elfo, No. C12-1289 2013 WL 7231585, at *6-*7 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14,

25

2013)(refusal to give prisoner gloves with which to use disinfectant did not violate Eighth

26

Amendment where there was no evidence of intent to punish, and medical records did

27
not demonstrate any health effects).
28
7

1
2
3

2. Toilet Access

4
Temporary deprivation of access to a toilet can rise to the level of an Eighth
5
6

Amendment violation. Hope, 536 U.S. at 738 (preventing inmate from using toilet for 7

7

hours while handcuffed to hitching post contributed to Eighth Amendment violation);

8

Pollard v. GEO Grp., Inc., 607 F.3d 583, 598 (9th Cir. 2010)(“a prison inmate deprived of

9

access to a toilet for several days would have a strong case against prison officers under

10

Bivens”), rev’d on other grounds by Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617 (2012); Johnson,

11

217 F. 3d at 730, 733 (complete absence of toilet facilities for inmates for one day could

12
13
14

violate the Eighth Amendment). Nonetheless, “toilets can be unavailable for some period
of time without violating the Eighth Amendment.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 733; accord

15

Gunn v. Tilton, No. CV 08-1039 2011 WL 1121949, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23,

16

2011)(depriving inmate of access to a restroom for up to two hours did not violate the

17

Eighth Amendment).

18
19

3. Mattress and Sanitation Supplies
Short-term deprivations of mattresses and some sanitary supplies generally do

20
21

not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Chappell, 706 F.3d at 1060-

22

1061 (one-day deprivation of a mattress does not violate the Eighth Amendment);

23

Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F,2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1988); vacated on other grounds by

24

493 U.S. 801 (1989)(same); Zavala v. Barnik, 545 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1059 (C.D. Cal.

25

2008)(“de minimis, apparently brief, one-time deprivation of toilet paper” did not violate

26

Eighth Amendment); Lopez v. Cate, No. 1:10-cv-01773 2013 WL 239097, at *8 (E.D.

27
28
8

1

Cal. Jan. 22, 2013)(deprivation of toilet paper, a toothbrush, and tooth powder for 7 days

2

does not violate the Eighth Amendment).

3

4. Lack of Clothing

4
A denial of adequate clothing, even for a brief period, may violate the Eighth
5
6

Amendment, at least where the inmate is outside and weather conditions are extreme.

7

See Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731 (plaintiffs made to lie prone, exposed to 90-degree heat

8

for 4 days violated the Eighth Amendment); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421 (9th

9

Cir. 1994)(acknowledging that weather conditions could be such that “the deprivation of

10
11

a jacket [could] inflict pain of a constitutional magnitude”); Gordon v. Faber, 973 F.2d
686, 688 (8th Cir. 1992)(inmates made to stand outside in subzero temperatures with

12
13
14

significant wind chill in only denim jackets without hats or gloves for two hours stated
Eighth Amendment claim); Chatman v. Tyner, at *7, *8 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2009)(citing

15

Walker to conclude that inmate who stood outside for over thirty minutes in inclement

16

weather without sufficient clothing withstood summary judgment); but see Gunn, No. CV-

17

08-1039 2011 WL 1121949, at *4 (inmate made to stand in the yard for five hours in

18
19

temperatures ranging from 52-79 degrees without water did not state claim).
The unconstitutionality of a lack of clothing for inmates in cells, however, is less

20
21

clear: the Eighth Amendment mandates “adequate heating,” but not necessarily a

22

comfortable temperature. Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010);

23

Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1091.

24

uncomfortable, temperature is that it poses a ‘substantial risk of serious harm.’” Graves,

25

623 F.3d at 1049. Thus, temporarily depriving an inmate who remains inside of clothing

26

“One measure of an inadequate, as opposed to merely

or blankets does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation if temperatures

27
are moderate. Compare Stevenson v. Adams, (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012)(where a building
28
9

1

was air-conditioned and left Plaintiff uncomfortable overnight was “the sort of short-term

2

discomfort that does not support an Eighth Amendment violation”); Gordon v. Cate, No.

3

11-cv-03593 2014 WL 848212, at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014)(inmate with thin

4
clothing and a blanket housed for 7 days in a cell with broken window pane and
5
6

malfunctioning ventilation system did not state a claim where lowest outside temperature

7

was 53 degrees and inmate did not ask for warmer clothes); with Graves, 623 F.3d at

8

1049 (upholding lower court’s finding that housing detainees taking psychotropic

9

medications in temperatures above 85 degrees violated the Eighth Amendment); Saenz

10
11

v. Reeves, No. 1:09-cv-00557 2013 WL 4049975, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13,
2012)(defendant not entitled to summary judgment where he denied Plaintiff’s requests

12
13
14

for blankets and clothing in a cell without functioning ventilation in the middle of winter);
Maldonaldo v. Youngblood, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013)(3-4 hour period of being

15

locked in a van with temperatures reaching upwards of 90 degrees in the vehicle met

16

objective prong of Eighth Amendment test).

17

V. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

18
19

Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment because the alleged
deprivations Plaintiff suffered were de minimis and of too short a duration to constitute

20
21

an Eighth Amendment violation. Specifically, Defendants argue (1) that Plaintiff was not

22

unconstitutionally deprived of a toilet because only ten minutes elapsed between when

23

Plaintiff allegedly made Defendant Nickell aware of his urgent need to use a bathroom

24

and when Plaintiff defecated in the holding cage; (2) that even if Defendants did make

25

the offensive remarks Plaintiff attributes to them, verbal harassment alone does not

26

violate the Eighth Amendment; (3) splashing Plaintiff with cleaning solution and water did

27
not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (4) even if Plaintiff were placed in a cell overnight
28
10

1

without bedding, clothing, or toilet paper, this short period of deprivation does not

2

implicate the constitution. Defendants dispute, however, that the period of Plaintiff’s

3

deprivation even lasted all night: they point out that their shift ended at 10:00 p.m., and

4
that if they did fail to provide Plaintiff with a bed roll, clothing, and hygiene items, Plaintiff
5
6

could have asked the next officer on duty for these items. They argue therefore that the

7

period of deprivation was only a few hours. In the alternative, Defendants argue they

8

are entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of such a brief

9

deprivation was not well-established.

10
11

Plaintiff claims that inmates are not permitted to use the bus bathroom for
defecation, and therefore he could not relieve himself prior to exiting the bus.

He

12
13
14

concedes that only 10 minutes elapsed between his request for a bathroom and the
loosening of his bowels. He alleges Defendants called him an “animal” to degrade and

15

humiliate him, and that other comments, including a threat to provide him with a “long,

16

cold, hard night” because of the diarrhea incident, and a menacing, “You better be glad

17

you’re leaving in the morning!” indicated their intent to cause suffering and pain. Plaintiff

18
19

is somewhat equivocal about the manner in which he was splashed with disinfectant - in
his opposition, he writes that the disinfectant was sprayed at him directly, but in his

20
21

deposition, he only indicates that it “splashed up on him.” (ECF No. 25-7, at 23). Plaintiff

22

states that he asked once for toilet paper of an unidentified sergeant within earshot of

23

Defendants, but that no one responded. He concedes that he did not ask Defendants

24

again for toilet paper or a bedroll, and that he did not ask the next shift of guards for

25

these items, either. (ECF No. 25-7, at 30-31; ECF No. 42, at 9). He cites his concern

26
27

that because he was partially naked, the next officer, who was female, would write him
up for sexual harassment if he tried to get her attention. Plaintiff alleges that he had “no

28
11

1

bedding or anything,” and that “it was very cold that night.” (ECF No. 25-7, at 31).

2

However, he never saw a thermometer. He alleges that the HVAC system at CCI is a

3

“swamp cooler,” which circulates air from the outdoors into the prison without heating it.

4
He has not explained his basis for concluding CCI uses a swamp cooler.
5
6
7

VI. ANALYSIS
Considering the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Comite de Jornaleros,

8

657 F.3d at 942, Defendant has proven an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s

9

case, Oracle Corp., 627 F.3d at 387. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the

10
11

Court will recommend that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted.
Here, Plaintiff’s claims do not satisfy both prongs of the Eighth Amendment test.

12
13
14

Defendants’ allegedly offensive and menacing comments arguably establish the
subjective prong of the test; however, the very brief deprivation of a toilet, the spraying

15

with water and disinfectant, and the somewhat longer deprivation of clothing, toilet paper

16

and a bedroll fall short of the objective prong.

17
18
19

Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered any health effects or pain from exposure
to the disinfectant. Although his accounts are inconsistent about whether he was
deliberately or inadvertently doused with disinfectant, he has not pleaded facts

20
21

suggesting that Defendants were trying to cause him pain, as opposed to disinfect him

22

after he had defecated in the cell. See Manriquez v. Huchins, No. 1:09-cv-00456 2010

23

WL 2791560 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2010)(defendants’ efforts to prolong plaintiff’s exposure

24

to pepper-spray like chemical was evidence of malicious intent). Plaintiff was

25

immediately sprayed with water after coming into contact with the disinfectant. Under

26

these circumstances, Plaintiff’s exposure to disinfectant, even if deliberate, fails to give

27
rise to an Eighth Amendment claim.
28
12

1

While deprivation of access to a toilet for several hours may, under certain

2

circumstances, violate the Eighth Amendment, see Hope, 536 U.S. at 738, the Court has

3
4

identified no cases that state that a deprivation of a few minutes, even in the face of
urgent need, reaches constitutional proportions.1 Likewise, while the lack of a bedroll

5
6

and toilet paper could, over a significant period of time, run afoul of the Eighth

7

Amendment, a deprivation for a few hours, or even overnight, does not violate the

8

constitution. See Chappell, 706 F.3d at 1060.

9
10
11

Being left without adequate clothing in cold temperatures can potentially violate
the Constitution even over a short period of time, but the Court finds that two
circumstances defeat Plaintiff’s claim on these grounds. First, Plaintiff has not

12
13
14

established that the temperature of his cell put him at a substantial risk of harm, as
opposed to mere discomfort. See Graves, 623 F.3d at 1049. Although Plaintiff claims

15

that temperatures inside the facility were “very cold” and “freezing,” he provides no

16

objective indication, or even estimate, of the actual temperature in or outside of the

17

institution on that date. The court need not accept his unsupported hypothesis that CCI

18

uses a “swamp cooler” that merely pipes in unheated air from the outdoors. “Mere

19

allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary

20
21

judgment”. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.

22

2007)(citing Nelson v. Pima Community College, 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-1082 (9th Cir.

23

1996); see also Angle, 673 F.3d 1122, 1134 n.6. Nor does Plaintiff explain any adverse

24

effects from the low temperature. The absence of more specific information about the

25

temperature or its effects on Plaintiff prevents this court from finding that a deprivation of

26
27
28

blankets and adequate clothing overnight amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation.
1

Plaintiff has not argued, nor does it appear that any facts would support the argument, that Defendants
were responsible for Plaintiff’s inability to use the toilet on the bus.

13

1
2
3

Next, Plaintiff has conceded that once defendants left duty, he did not ask again
for either a bedroll or new boxer shorts. His asserted fear that he might have been
written up if he had requested blankets and/or clothing from the guard does not give rise

4
to a constitutional claim based on a failure to recognize an unspoken need. Failing to
5
6

request a remedy for a deprivation is an important factor in determining whether the

7

deprivation was unconstitutional. Compare Gordon, No. 11-cv-03593 2014 WL 848212,

8

at *4-*5 (inmate who did not request extra clothing failed to state a claim on the basis of

9

his deprivation, even though he was housed in a cell with no heat and a broken window

10
11

for multiple days) with Saenz, No. 1:09-cv-00557 2013 WL 4049975, at *15 (defendant
not entitled to summary judgment where he denied Plaintiff’s requests for blankets and

12
13
14

clothing in a cell without functioning ventilation in the middle of winter). Here, Plaintiff’s
failure to try to remedy his situation, combined with the lack of indication that the

15

temperature in the facility posed a substantial risk of harm, supports the conclusion that

16

the temporary discomfort Plaintiff suffered was not unconstitutional.

17
18
19

Defendants have shown an absence of evidence to support an Eighth
Amendment claim against them.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

20
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of putting forth sufficient

21
22

evidence to raise a triable issue of fact.2 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY

23

RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) be

24

GRANTED, thus concluding this action in its entirety.

25
26
27
28

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
2

Because the court resolves Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in their favor on other grounds, it
does not their qualified immunity argument.

14

1

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any

2

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

3
4

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen

5
6

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

7

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

8

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

9

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated:

March 30, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15