Edwards v. Cabral et al

Filing 73

ORDER ADOPTING 69 Findings and Recommendations to: 1) Find Original 54 Motion for Summary Judgment to be Superseded by Amended 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANT In Part and DENY In Part Defendants' Amended 55 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/16/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN R. EDWARDS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
D. CABRAL,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00345 AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO:
1) FIND ORIGINAL MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No.
54) TO BE SUPERSEDED BY
AMENDED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No.
55)
2) GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 55)

19
20
21

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

22

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

23

Defendants Bratton, Cabral, Escoto, and Pascual on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

24

medical indifference claims. (ECF Nos. 1 & 8.) The matter was referred to a United

25

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the

26

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

27

On April 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

28

to grant Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) as to Escoto
1

1

and Pascual and deny it as to Bratton and Cabral. (ECF No. 69.) Defendants filed

2

objections to the denial of summary judgment for Bratton and Cabral on May 11, 2015.

3

(ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the Court’s findings and

4

recommendations on May 11, 2015 (ECF No. 71) and a reply to Defendants’ objections

5

on May 22, 2015. (ECF No. 72.)

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1), the Court has

7

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

8

Court finds that the April 27, 2015 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by

9

the record and by proper analysis.

10

Specifically, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff had to suffer

11

lasting physical injury from his exposure to pepper spray in order for (1) Bratton’s failure

12

to decontaminate him or for (2) Cabral’s disregard of his request for medical attention to

13

violate the Eighth Amendment. Even relatively brief periods of unnecessary pain meet

14

the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment test. See Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d

15

898, 904 (9th Cir. 2002)(citing McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992));

16

see also Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014)(serious medical need

17

present where an inmate suffers chronic and substantial pain.) In fact, the Ninth Circuit

18

has specifically held that exposure to the “painful effects of pepper spray” amounts to a

19

serious medical need, regardless of whether such exposure leads to lasting harm.

20

Clement, 298 F.3d at 904; Roberts v. Gonzalez, No. CV 12-2044 2013 WL 4663882, at

21

*7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2013); Manriquez v. Huchins, No. 1:09-CV-00456 2010 WL

22

2791560, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2010).

23

Similarly, Cabral’s inaction in response to Plaintiff’s complaints of pain was not

24

objectionable because she mistook an emergency for a routine medical complaint, but

25

because her comment that she “couldn’t get involved,” combined with her failure to give

26

Plaintiff a medical call slip, suggested she knew of and was ignoring risks to Plaintiff’s

27

health.

28

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
2

1
2

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 69), filed April
27, 2015, in full;

3

2. Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55), filed

4

December 8, 2014 supersedes the original motion for summary judgment

5

(ECF No. 54), filed December 5, 2014;

6
7
8
9

3. Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) is
GRANTED as to Defendants Escoto and Pascual; and
4. Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) is DENIED
as to Defendants Bratton and Cabral.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3