Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 45 Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff's Excessive Force Claim signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/25/2019. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-JDP

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S
EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM

OFFICER BAKER,

15

Defendants.

16

(Doc. Nos. 45, 59)

17
18
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19
20

action brought pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was

21

then referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

22

Rule 302.
On January 26, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

23
24

recommending that defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s excessive use of

25

force claim be denied. (Doc. No. 59.) The findings and recommendations were served on the

26

parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days.

27

Defendant Baker filed objections. (Doc. No. 60.)

28

/////
1

1

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

2

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

3

defendant’s objections, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are

4

supported by the record and proper analysis.
Defendant’s objections raise two arguments. (Doc. No. 60.) First, defendant argues that

5
6

Officer Borja, defendant, and plaintiff were obscured by the cell door for only two to three

7

seconds and that no reasonable jury could find from the evidence that defendant injured plaintiff’s

8

arm during this time. (Id. at 2-4.) The court disagrees. As an initial matter, two to three seconds

9

would be sufficient time for defendant to injure plaintiff’s arm in the manner alleged by plaintiff.

10

Moreover, the court has reviewed the video evidence before it on summary judgment and

11

concludes that evidence suggests that the actions of defendant were obscured from view for much

12

longer than two to three seconds; rather, the court perceives that defendant’s actions were

13

obscured as long as twelve seconds, from 11:27:36 to 11:27:48 on the videotape. Based upon the

14

evidence before the court on summary judgment a material issue of fact is in dispute and,

15

depending on how that dispute is resolved, a reasonable jury could find for plaintiff.

16

Second, defendant contends that the court should dismiss plaintiff’s claim as an

17

unwarranted extension of Bivens in light of the decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, ___ U.S. ___, ___,

18

137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017). (Doc. No. 60 at 4–6.) Defendant concedes that this issue was not

19

briefed in connection with the pending motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 6.) Arguments

20

raised for the first time in objections to the findings and recommendations are waived. See

21

Greenhow v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 863 F.2d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that it

22

was “entirely appropriate” for a district court to decline to consider arguments not raised before

23

the magistrate judge), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347

24

(9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the court expresses no opinion on this issue.1

25

1

26
27
28

The Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. While district courts are arguably
divided regarding the application of Ziglar, motions to dismiss Bivens actions alleging Eighth
Amendment excessive use of force claims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in that case
have been rejected. See Moneyham v. United States, Case No. EDCV 17-329-VBF (KK), 2018
WL 3814586, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2018), report and recommendation adopted by 2018
WL 3807839 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018); McLean v. Gutierrez, No. ED CV 15-275 RGK (SP),
2

1

For these reasons,

2

1.

3
4

adopted in full; and
2.

5
6
7
8

The findings and recommendations issued on January 26, 2019 (Doc. No. 59) are

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s excessive force claim
(Doc. No. 45) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 25, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2017 WL 6887309, at *18-19 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted by
2018 WL 354604 (Jan. 10, 2108); But see Thomas v. Matevousian, 1:17-cv-01592-AWI-GSA,
2019 WL 266323, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2019) (Applying Ziglar in dismissing a plaintiff’s
conditions of confinement Bivens claim brought under the Eighth Amendment involving
allegations that the plaintiff was denied deodorant, razors, shampoo, writing paper and envelops
for forty days).
3