Larry Smith v. Gonzales et al

Filing 97

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 87 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED re 12 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/16/2021. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SERGEANT J. GONZALES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:17-cv-00436-DAD-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED
(ECF No. 87.)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
OBJECTIONS

17
18
19
20

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

Larry Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

22

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s

23

First Amended Complaint filed on June 23, 2017, against defendants Sergeant Gonzales,

24

Correctional Officer (C/O) Johnson, C/O Castro, C/O Meier,1 C/O Flores,2 and C/O Potzernitz

25

for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendant C/O Scaife

26
27
28

1

Sued as Miner.

2

Sued as Florez.
1

1

for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against defendant

2

Sergeant Gonzales for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.3 (ECF No. 12.)

3

On December 21, 2020, defendants Gonzales, Johnson, Castro, Meier, Flores, Potzernitz,

4

and Scaife (“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment based on the undisputed facts

5

presented, on the grounds that: (1) Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; (2)

6

Plaintiff has no evidence to establish necessary elements of his claims; and (3) Defendants are

7

entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 87.)

8

On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion, (ECF No. 88), for a 60-day extension of

9

time to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, which the court granted on

10

February 3, 2021, (ECF No. 88). On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion

11

for summary judgment.4 (ECF Nos. 90, 91.) On April 8, 2021, Defendants filed a reply to

12

Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 92.) In their reply, Defendants addressed Plaintiff’s Declaration

13

in which Plaintiff suggested that he may require an extension of time to file all of the opposition

14

to the motion for summary judgment which he intended to submit. (Id.) Defendants responded

15

that they would not oppose one further extension of time for Plaintiff. (Id.)

16

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second opposition to the motion for summary

17

judgment. (ECF No. 93.) On April 26, 2021, the court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s second

18

opposition as an impermissible surreply. (ECF No. 94.) However, in light of Defendants’

19

indication that they would not oppose one further extension of time for Plaintiff to file all of his

20

opposition, on April 30, 2021, the court found good cause to reinstate Plaintiff’s second

21

opposition allowing Defendants thirty days in which to reply to the second opposition. (ECF No.

22
3

23
24
25

On February 19, 2020, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant C/O
A. Fritz based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the claims against defendant
Fritz. (ECF No. 57.) The court also granted summary judgment to Sgt. J. Gonzales as to plaintiff’s
retaliation claims to the extent they are based on defendant Gonzales’s alleged issuance of a RVR
recommending that plaintiff be transferred; the court denied summary judgment as to plaintiff’s
remaining retaliation claim against defendant Sgt. J. Gonzales. (Id.)

26
4

27
28

Together with the motion for summary judgment, Defendants served Plaintiff with the
requisite notice of the requirements for opposing the motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey,
684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998). (ECF No.
87-1.)
2

1

95.) On May 28, 2021, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s second opposition. (ECF No.

2

96.)

3

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has now been submitted upon the record

4

without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), and for the reasons that follow the court

5

shall recommend that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied.

6

II.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

7

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the court shall grant summary judgment

8

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

9

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted);

10

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

11

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

12

parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations,

13

or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of

14

a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the

15

fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The court may consider other materials

16

in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3);

17

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord

18

Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

19

Defendant does not bear the burden of proof at trial and in moving for summary judgment,

20

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

21

Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106

22

S.Ct. 2548 (1986)). If Defendant meets his initial burden, the burden then shifts to Plaintiff “to

23

designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial.” Id. This requires

24

Plaintiff to “show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Id. (citing Anderson

25

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986)).

26

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court may not make

27

credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509

28

F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all
3

1

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine

2

issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v.

3

City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

The court determines only whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d

5

1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

In arriving at these findings and recommendations, the court carefully reviewed and

7

considered all arguments, points and authorities, declarations, exhibits, statements of undisputed

8

facts and responses thereto, if any, objections, and other papers filed by the parties. Omission of

9

reference to an argument, document, paper, or objection is not to be construed to the effect that

10

this court did not consider the argument, document, paper, or objection. This court thoroughly

11

reviewed and considered the evidence it deemed admissible, material, and appropriate.

12

III.

13
14

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT5
At the time of the events at issue in this case, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Corcoran State

Prison (CSP) in Corcoran, California.

15

Plaintiff’s allegations follow:

16

On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff arrived at CSP. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a urinary

17

infection which caused him severe pain. He was prescribed Tylenol with Codeine and antibiotics.

18

On September 23, 2013, while defendant C/O Johnson was escorting Plaintiff to get his pain

19

medications, Plaintiff doubled up in pain. Defendant Johnson asked, “Hey old timer are you

20

alright,” and Plaintiff told him about the infection that was causing him severe pain. (ECF No.

21

12 at 12:13-14.)6

22

///

23
24

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is verified and his allegations constitute evidence
where they are based on his personal knowledge of facts admissible in evidence. Jones v. Blanas, 393
F.3d 918, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2004). The summarization of Plaintiff’s claims in this section should not be
viewed by the parties as a ruling that the allegations are admissible. The Court will address, to the extent
necessary, the admissibility of Plaintiff’s evidence in the sections that follow.
5

25
26
27
28

All page numbers cited herein are those assigned by the court’s CM/ECF system and
not based on the parties’ pagination of their briefing materials.
6

4

1

On September 24, 2013, at 7:00 a.m., defendant C/O Johnson and C/O Fritz (female) [not

2

a defendant] came to conduct a random search of Plaintiff’s cell. C/O Johnson instructed C/O

3

Gonzales (control booth officer – not a defendant) to open Plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff’s cell mate

4

was sitting on the top bunk. Defendant Johnson opened the cell door and instructed Plaintiff to

5

remove all of his clothing, turn around, bend forward at the waist and pull his buttocks apart and

6

hold them open so that defendant Johnson could examine Plaintiff’s rectal area. Other inmates

7

were being released for breakfast and witnessed this strip search in the presence of the female

8

C/O. Per CDCR policy, Plaintiff squatted and coughed. Johnson stated that if Plaintiff didn’t

9

allow him to “look up my butt,” he would have Plaintiff placed on potty watch. (ECF No. 12 at

10

5.) Plaintiff requested potty watch. Defendant Johnson gave Plaintiff his boxer shorts and as soon

11

as Plaintiff put them on defendant Johnson grabbed Plaintiff by the arm and the back of his head,

12

slammed his face into the wall busting Plaintiff’s mouth, and then handcuffed him. C/O Gonzales

13

[not a defendant] also witnessed the incident by C/O Johnson. When C/O Johnson slammed

14

Plaintiff’s face into the wall, C/O Gonzales stuck his gun out of the control booth and pointed it

15

at Plaintiff. Defendant Johnson told C/O Fritz to watch Plaintiff’s cell mate and to spray him if

16

he moved. C/O Johnson locked Plaintiff in the shower and went back to search Plaintiff’s cell.

17

C/O Johnson returned to the shower and asked if Plaintiff was going to follow his instructions.

18

Plaintiff just looked at him. C/O Johnson instructed C/O Gonzales [not a defendant] to open the

19

shower door and told Plaintiff to exit. As Plaintiff came out, C/O Johnson grabbed him by the

20

hand, still handcuffed, bent his wrist very aggressively, escorted Plaintiff to the program office

21

and placed him into a holding cage.

22

A short time later, defendants Sgt. Gonzales, C/O Johnson, C/O Castro, C/O Miner, C/O

23

Flores, C/O Potzernitz, and C/O Scaife came into the holding area. C/O Scaife stood by the door

24

and observed. Sgt. Gonzales stated that C/O Johnson believed Plaintiff had contraband secreted

25

in his rectal cavity. Plaintiff informed Sgt. Gonzales about his urinary infection that was causing

26

him severe pain and told Sgt. Gonzales that he could verify this information at the clinic. Sgt.

27

Gonzales said that wasn’t necessary, he just needed to check Plaintiff for contraband. Sgt.

28

Gonzales instructed Plaintiff to remove his boxers, raise his hands up, open his mouth, and run
5

1

his fingers through his hair, which Plaintiff did. Sgt. Gonzales then unlocked the holding cage

2

and instructed him to exit, which Plaintiff did. Sgt. Gonzales told Plaintiff to turn his back to

3

him, bend forward at the waist and grab his buttocks and spread them open so he could “see up

4

my butt.” (ECF No. 12 at 6:15.) Plaintiff told Sgt. Gonzales that CDCR policy was to squat and

5

cough. Plaintiff squatted and coughed five times. Sgt. Gonzales told Plaintiff he needed to follow

6

his instructions or he would place Plaintiff on potty watch. Plaintiff said he would rather be on

7

potty watch than hold his butt open for a bunch of homosexual correctional officers. Sgt.

8

Gonzales then stated, “I’m not going to waste everybody’s time placing you on potty watch,”

9

then grabbed Plaintiff and instructed the other C/Os to take Plaintiff down. (ECF No. 12 at 6:19-

10

20.) Defendants Johnson, Castro, Miner, Flores, and Potzernitz all attacked Plaintiff, forcing him

11

to the ground naked. Plaintiff was kicked and stomped in the head, shoulders, back, and legs.

12

C/O Castro and C/O Potzernitz stood on Plaintiff’s upper back pinning him to the ground. C/O

13

Miner and C/O Flores grabbed Plaintiff’s ankles and forced his legs apart. Defendant C/O Scaife

14

stood by and watched the assault. Then C/O Johnson got on the ground, grabbed Plaintiff’s

15

buttocks, and spread them apart. Sgt. Gonzales stood between Plaintiff’s legs and instructed C/O

16

Miner and C/O Flores to lift his legs up. Sgt. Gonzales then checked Plaintiff’s rectal area.

17

Plaintiff was cleared and the officers let him go. Sgt. Gonzales instructed Plaintiff to go back into

18

the holding cage and returned his boxer shorts to him. All of the officers stepped out into the

19

hallway. Plaintiff was humiliated and embarrassed.

20

A short time later, Plaintiff overheard C/O Johnson and Sgt. Gonzales conspiring in the

21

hallway. C/O Johnson said, “Inmate Smith has a history of filing staff misconduct complaints.”

22

(ECF No. 12 at 7:4-5.) Sgt. Gonzales responded, “Let him go back to his cell and if he says

23

anything we’ll say he got into a fight with his cell mate.” (ECF No. 12 at 7:6-7.)

24

Sgt. Gonzales returned to the holding cage and instructed Plaintiff to return to his cell.

25

Plaintiff informed Sgt. Gonzales that he needed medical attention and was in great pain from

26

being kicked and stomped. Sgt. Gonzales told Plaintiff to return to his cell and he would notify

27

medical staff. At this point, Sgt. Gonzales picked up a towel and started to wipe the boot prints

28

off of Plaintiff’s back. Plaintiff told him not to touch him and started walking out of the program
6

1

office. Plaintiff turned left towards medical instead of right toward 3A05 (his cell). Sgt. Gonzales

2

came running out of the program office, stopped Plaintiff and told him to return to his cell.

3

Plaintiff sat on the ground and told Sgt. Gonzales he was in pain and needed medical attention.

4

Sgt. Gonzales instructed C/O Castro and C/O Potzernitz to pick Plaintiff up and return him to his

5

cell. Castro and Potzernitz each grabbed Plaintiff under his arm and started to half carry and half

6

drag him across the yard. Plaintiff started yelling, the yard tower activated an alarm and Sgt.

7

Gonzales instructed the officers to put him down. Nurse Levan [not a defendant] arrived and

8

asked what the matter was. Plaintiff told the nurse that Sgt. Gonzales and six C/Os had assaulted

9

him. Sgt. Gonzales told the nurse that they didn’t assault Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s back was dirty

10

because he had lain on the ground. The nurse asked Sgt. Gonzales how Plaintiff’s mouth got

11

busted and his shoulder got bruised. Sgt. Gonzales told the nurse to medically clear Plaintiff so

12

they could put him back in his cell. The nurse told Sgt. Gonzales to use a wheelchair to return

13

him to his cell and she would have Plaintiff seen by the doctor later.

14
15

Nurse Levan filled out a CDCR-7219 medical report of Plaintiff’s injuries noting redness
and dried blood on his mouth and abrasions on his shoulders, back, and legs.

16

C/O Johnson confiscated Plaintiff’s 602 form from his pocket at the clinic window at

17

noon when Plaintiff informed Nurse Levan that he was suicidal. Sgt. Gonzales then read the 602

18

out loud to other C/Os at the program office while Plaintiff was waiting to see his clinician Dr.

19

Stokes [not a defendant].

20

Sgt. Gonzales issued Plaintiff RVR (Rules Violation Report) #3-A-13-09-034 for

21

willfully delaying a peace officer as a way to justify his actions, using creative writing to say he

22

ordered C/Os Castro and Potzernitz to pick Plaintiff up and return him to his cell because when

23

Plaintiff sat down and requested medical attention, he was blocking the doorway to the program

24

office which was a hazard. Sgt. Gonzales also said that the 7219 medical report by Nurse Levan

25

only listed a busted lip. Initially, the RVR was written by C/O Johnson. But Sgt. Gonzales altered

26

it from saying Plaintiff squatted and coughed to say that Plaintiff had not followed his instructions

27

to bend forward at the waist and spread his buttocks. He said that after five minutes of speaking

28

to Plaintiff, Plaintiff complied and the search was concluded with negative results. But the five7

1

minute conversation actually consisted of Sgt. Gonzales ordering his staff to use force on

2

Plaintiff, pinning him down, kicking and stomping him, and forcibly spreading his buttocks apart.

3

There were also other errors written on the RVR, which is why Plaintiff requested as witnesses

4

C/O Gonzales, C/O Fritz, and Plaintiff’s cell mate. (ECF No. 12 at 9 ¶3.)

5

At the RVR hearing, Nurse Levan told Hearing Officer Lt. Marmolejo [not a defendant]

6

that Sgt. Gonzales told her (nurse) to turn the report over to Sgt. Gonzales, who claimed he

7

misplaced it and never found it. However, Lt. Marmolejo did not record this statement at the

8

RVR hearing. Plaintiff had two other medical reports done by Dr. Barnett [not a defendant] on

9

September 25, 2013, and Nurse Grisweld [not a defendant] on September 24, 2013, to document

10

Plaintiff’s injuries showing the injuries Plaintiff received from the assault on September 24, 2013.

11

At the hearing, Plaintiff was not allowed to question Nurse Levan. Hearing Officer Lt. Marmolejo

12

asked Sgt. Gonzales if Plaintiff informed him of his medical condition and that he needed to see

13

the nurse. Sgt. Gonzales answered that he didn’t remember, but he contradicted himself by saying

14

Plaintiff sat on his butt claiming he needed medical. Lt. Marmolejo did not allow Plaintiff’s

15

requested witnesses. Also, Plaintiff should have been assigned an Investigative Employee but

16

was not. Plaintiff was found guilty of a rules violation and forfeited 90 days of credits and lost

17

90 days of privileges. Also, as a result of the disciplinary proceeding Plaintiff’s privilege group

18

was changed from A-1 to B-2 status.

19

At noon, Sgt. Gonzales instructed C/O Johnson to roll up Plaintiff’s property and bring it

20

up to the program office because if Plaintiff was going to file a 602 grievance for staff misconduct

21

and use of force, then Sgt. Gonzales would have Plaintiff placed in Administrative Segregation

22

(Ad-Seg) for three to six months without his property. Plaintiff was then placed in a mental health

23

crisis bed on suicide watch for a few days. When he returned to 3A yard all of his property was

24

missing. On October 16, 2013, some of Plaintiff’s property was returned by C/O Flores.

25

On October 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 602 grievance, #CSP-C-2-13-07568, concerning

26

the use of excessive force and not reporting it, which was partially granted on December 31,

27

2013. Plaintiff submitted it to the third level on January 15, 2014, where it was rejected on

28

February 25, 2014. Plaintiff re-submitted it on April 10, 2014, and it was rejected again on July
8

1

28, 2014. Plaintiff submitted it again on August 4, 2014, and it was rejected a third time on

2

October 15, 2014. Plaintiff wrote a letter to Attorney General Kamala Harris on January 11, 2015,

3

and a letter to the Inspector General on February 22, 2015.

4

On November 11, 2013, Plaintiff was placed on suicide watch again. During this time,

5

Plaintiff’s property was rolled up and never issued back to him. When Plaintiff returned back to

6

3A yard on November 12, 2013, he refused to be housed with a gang member. Custody attempted

7

to move Plaintiff into a cell which was already occupied by an inmate in the lower bunk who was

8

a gang member. Custody had written on Plaintiff’s bed card that he was a Crip gang member,

9

which is not true. The inmate had already made plans to move a friend in with him, so Plaintiff

10

refused to move in because Plaintiff is not a gang member and because Plaintiff also had a lower

11

bunk chrono. This upset Sgt. Gonzales because Plaintiff had three cell moves in one month.

12

Plaintiff informed floor staff that he was suicidal and wanted to return to the mental health

13

crisis bed, so he was taken to the program office and placed into a holding cage. Sgt. Gonzales

14

stated that he was tired of Plaintiff “going suicidal,” so he was going to move Plaintiff off 3A

15

yard. (ECF No. 12 at 15:12.) Sgt. Gonzales told Plaintiff’s clinician, Dr. Stokes, that he was

16

placing Plaintiff in Ad-Seg for safety concerns because Plaintiff had told him (Gonzales) that

17

Plaintiff was being beaten up by the black inmates for no reason. Sgt. Gonzales issued Plaintiff

18

a fictitious lock-up order for safety concerns and had him placed in Ad-Seg. Plaintiff alleges that

19

he never told Sgt. Gonzales he was being beaten up and that Sgt. Gonzales made up a fictitious

20

story to suit his purpose for the lock up order and RVR.

21

Plaintiff’s clinician Dr. Stokes told Plaintiff that Sgt. Gonzales said he was having

22

Plaintiff placed in Ad-Seg for safety concerns, but she (Stokes) was sending him to the mental

23

health crisis bed. When Plaintiff returned on November 15, 2013, he was placed in Ad-Seg.

24

On November 13, 2013, Sgt. Gonzales issued a chrono for safety concerns which said

25

that housing unit staff informed Plaintiff that he would be housed with a compatible cell mate.

26

Sgt. Gonzales doesn’t identify the cell mate or the housing unit staff who said that Plaintiff stated,

27

“I’m not going to get beat up again. The last cell mate I was with beat me up so I said I’d kill

28

him if I stayed in the cell with him.” (ECF No. 12 at 15:24-25.) Plaintiff alleges that none of this
9

1

is true. Plaintiff did not tell Sgt. Gonzales that he had been assaulted multiple times on Facility

2

3A by a black inmate. Plaintiff alleges that he would have filed a 602 appeal if he had been

3

assaulted. Sgt. Gonzales never interviewed Plaintiff about safety concerns. The document stating

4

Plaintiff was claiming safety concerns endangered Plaintiff’s life on the general population.

5

Plaintiff never said that inmates Johnson or Law were on his enemy list. Plaintiff contends that

6

Sgt. Gonzales issued the safety concerns order to get back at Plaintiff for filing the 602 use of

7

force appeal. Sgt. Gonzales labeled him as a “snitch” and pressured Plaintiff into being placed

8

on a sensitive needs yard, both which placed Plaintiff in danger when released back to the yard

9

or transferred to another prison. (ECF No. 12 at 17:19.)

10

Under CDCR 3315, other employees cannot issue write-ups on other staff’s behavior.

11

The staff who witnessed the infraction must write the RVR. Plaintiff contends that therefore

12

3A02 housing staff, and not Sgt. Gonzales, should have issued him an RVR for refusing a cell

13

mate.

14

Plaintiff submitted a 602 appeal concerning his missing property and it was assigned to

15

Sgt. Gonzales at the first level of review. On January 15, 2014, Sgt. Gonzales denied the appeal,

16

stating that Plaintiff never had any property while he was at CSP. This was not true. Plaintiff had

17

four boxes of property when he arrived at CSP. The 602 was denied at the second and third levels

18

of review.

19

On November 23, 2013, Plaintiff was scheduled for transfer to Lancaster State Prison due

20

to Sgt. Gonzales’ safety concerns. On January 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 602 appeal concerning

21

his transfer and another appeal concerning Sgt. Gonzales falsifying state documents. On March

22

3, 2014, Plaintiff was transferred to Pelican Bay Supermax State Prison for no reason where all

23

of his chronos were cancelled.

24

Plaintiff alleges he was retaliated against by Sgt. Gonzales for exercising his right to file

25

a grievance against Sgt. Gonzales and his staff for using excessive force against Plaintiff during

26

a random cell search, and the retaliatory actions did not advance any legitimate penological goals.

27

Plaintiff alleges that all of the following actions were retaliatory: issuing the RVR and lock up

28

///
10

1

order and placing Plaintiff in Ad-Seg on November 12, 2013; recommending that Plaintiff be

2

transferred; and, confiscating Plaintiff’s personal property on November 12, 2013.

3

IV.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS – LEGAL STANDARDS

4

On May 22, 2018, the court screened the First Amended Complaint, filed on June 23,

5

2017, and found that Plaintiff states cognizable claims against defendants Sergeant Gonzales,

6

C/O Johnson, C/O Castro, C/O Meier, C/O Flores, and C/O Potzernitz for use of excessive force

7

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendant C/O Scaife for failure to protect

8

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against defendant Sergeant Gonzales for

9

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 22.)
Excessive Force – Eighth Amendment Claim

10

A.

11

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

12

Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson

13

v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim

14

is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (internal quotation

15

marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always

16

violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is

17

evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment

18

excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However,

19

not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Id. at 9.

20

“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes

21

from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force

22

is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks

23

and citations omitted).

24

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation

25

of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was

26

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to

27

cause harm.” Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it

28

may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that
11

1

need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,

2

and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks

3

and citations omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment

4

inquiry, but does not end it.” Id.
Failure to Protect – Eighth Amendment Claim

5

B.

6

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and

7

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.

8

2006). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide

9

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v.

10

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison

11

officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer,

12

511 U.S. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison

13

officials to protect inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth

14

Amendment violation where prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious

15

harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040.

16

To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were

17

“deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The

18

question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials, acting with deliberate

19

indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently “substantial risk of serious harm” to his future

20

health. Id. at 843 (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). The Supreme Court has

21

explained that “deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence . . . [but]

22

something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge

23

that harm will result.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. The Court defined this “deliberate indifference”

24

standard as equal to “recklessness,” in which “a person disregards a risk of harm of which he is

25

aware.” Id. at 836-37.

26

The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong.

27

First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Id. at 834.

28

Second, subjectively, the prison official must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate
12

1

health or safety.” Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995).

2

To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner may rely on circumstantial evidence; in

3

fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to establish knowledge. Farmer, 511 U.S.

4

at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995).
Retaliation – First Amendment Claim

5

C.

6

As discussed by the Ninth Circuit in Watison v. Carter:

7

“A retaliation claim has five elements. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,

8

1269 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the plaintiff must allege that the retaliated-against

9

conduct is protected. The filing of an inmate grievance is protected conduct.

10

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005).

11

Second, the plaintiff must claim the defendant took adverse action against

12

the plaintiff.

13

constitutional violation. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995).

14

“[T]he mere threat of harm can be an adverse action....” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at

15

1270.

Id. at 567.

The adverse action need not be an independent

16

Third, the plaintiff must allege a causal connection between the adverse

17

action and the protected conduct. Because direct evidence of retaliatory intent

18

rarely can be pleaded in a complaint, allegation of a chronology of events from

19

which retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal. See Pratt, 65

20

F.3d at 808 (“timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of

21

retaliatory intent”); Murphy v. Lane, 833 F.2d 106, 108–09 (7th Cir. 1987).

22

Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official’s acts would chill or

23

silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.”

24

Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A]

25

plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling effect may still state a claim if he alleges he

26

suffered some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that is “more than

27

minimal,” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11. That the retaliatory conduct did not

28

///
13

1

chill the plaintiff from suing the alleged retaliator does not defeat the retaliation

2

claim at the motion to dismiss stage. Id. at 569.

3

Fifth, the plaintiff must allege “that the prison authorities’ retaliatory

4

action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution. . . .” Rizzo

5

v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985). A plaintiff successfully pleads this

6

element by alleging, in addition to a retaliatory motive, that the defendant’s

7

actions were arbitrary and capricious, id., or that they were “unnecessary to the

8

maintenance of order in the institution,” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230

9

(9th Cir.1984).”

10

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012).

11

V.

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

12

Pursuant to Local Rule 260(a), Defendants Gonzales, Meier, Johnson, Castro, Flores,

13

Potzernitz, and Scaife submitted this statement of undisputed facts with citations to the

14

supporting evidence. (ECF No. 87-3.) Defendants identify these facts as undisputed solely for

15

purposes of this Motion for Summary Judgment. In the event that Defendants’ Motion for

16

Summary Judgment is denied, in whole or in part, Defendants reserve the right to contest all

17

material facts at trial.

18

Defendants’ evidence includes Plaintiff’s allegations in the verified First Amended

19

Complaint (ECF No. 12); declarations of defendant Sergeant J. Gonzales (ECF No. 87-4), of

20

Appeals Coordinator S. Boxall (ECF No. 87-5), of Appeals Coordinator M. Harder (ECF No.

21

87-6), of Appeals Coordinator P. Williams (ECF No. 87-7), of Appeals Coordinator M. Russell

22

(ECF No. 87-8), of Deputy Attorney General James Mathison (ECF No. 87-9), of defendant B.

23

Johnson (87-10), of defendant E. Castro (ECF No. 87-11), of defendant J. Potzernitz (ECF No.

24

87-12), of defendant G. Meier (ECF No. 87-13), of defendant A. Scaife (ECF No. 87-14), of

25

defendant H. Flores (ECF No. 87-15); and prison records.
Plaintiff’s complete responses to Defendants’ undisputed facts are found in Plaintiff’s

26
27

opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 90.)

28

///
14

1

UNDISPUTED FACTS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

2

FACT

3

1.
At
approximately (Decl. Johnson, ¶ 2; Decl. UNDISPUTED
7:15 a.m. on September 24, Scaife, ¶ 2.)
2013, Defendants Johnson
Plaintiff adds some of his own
and Scaife conducted a search
facts but does not contradict
for contraband of Plaintiff
or dispute Fact #1 as set forth
Smith’s cell. As part of the
by Defendants. (ECF No. 90
search, Johnson attempted to
at 1.)
conduct an unclothed body
search of Smith, and in doing
Therefore, Defendants’ Fact
so instructed Smith to bend at
#1 is undisputed.
the waist and spread his
buttocks, so that Johnson
could visually confirm that
Smith
did
not
have
contraband hidden in his
rectum.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CITATION TO EVIDENCE

2.
Smith refused to (Decl. Johnson, ¶ 2.)
comply
with
Johnson’s
instructions. Because he
would not comply, Johnson
handcuffed Smith, escorted
him to the facility Program
Office, and placed him in a
holding cell there.

UNDISPUTED

3.
During these events (Decl. Johnson, ¶ 3.)
Johnson used no physical
force on Smith, other than to
handcuff him.

DISPUTED

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff states that as soon as
C/O
Johnson
returned
Plaintiff’s boxer shorts, he
grabbed Plaintiff by the arm
and back of his head,
slammed Plaintiff’s face into
the wall busting his mouth
open, which was bleeding.
(ECF No. 90 at 2 ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff’s version raises a
genuine dispute of material
fact.

23
24
25
26
27
28
15

1

FACT

2

4.
During these events (Decl. Scaife, ¶ 2.)
Scaife used no physical force
on Smith.

3

CITATION TO EVIDENCE

4
5
6

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

UNDISPUTED
Plaintiff adds some of his own
facts but does not contradict
or dispute Fact #4 as set forth
by Defendants. (ECF No. 90
at 2 ¶ 4.)
Therefore, Defendants’ Fact
#4 is undisputed.

7
8

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

5.
At
approximately (Decl. Johnson, ¶ 2; Decl. UNDISPUTED
7:45 a.m., Johnson notified Gonzales, ¶ 2.)
Defendant Sergeant Gonzales
that Smith had refused to
comply with his orders to
submit to an unclothed body
search, and that Smith had
been placed in the holding
cell. Gonzales entered the
holding cell area and spoke to
Smith about the situation, and
of the need to complete the
search to ensure that Smith
was not in possession of
contraband.
6.
Gonzales instructed (Decl. Gonzales, ¶ 2.)
Smith to remove his boxer
shorts, and conducted a visual
search of Smith’s mouth,
ears,
hands,
fingers,
underarms and feet. Gonzales
then instructed Smith to step
out of the holding cell in order
to visually inspect his rectal
cavity, and directed Smith to
bend forward at the waist and
spread his buttocks for visual
inspection. Smith refused to
comply with this instruction,
and instead he squatted and
coughed. Gonzales again
instructed Smith to bend
forward at the waist and
spread his buttocks, and again
Smith squatted and coughed.

26
27
28
16

UNDISPUTED
Plaintiff adds some of his own
facts but does not contradict
or dispute Fact #6 as set forth
by Defendants. (ECF No. 90
at 2 ¶ 6.)
Therefore, Defendants’ Fact
#6 is undisputed.

1

FACT

2

7.
During these events, (Decl. Gonzales, ¶ 2.)
Gonzales did not use physical
force on Smith.

3

CITATION TO EVIDENCE

4
5
6
7

9

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DISPUTED
Plaintiff states that Sgt.
Gonzales gave the order for
his staff to take Plaintiff down
and participated in physically
assaulting him on 9-24-13 in
the program office holding
tank area. (ECF No. 90 at 45 ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff’s version raises a
genuine dispute of material
fact.

8

10

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

8.
Gonzales instructed
Smith to return to his cell. (Decl. Gonzales, ¶ 2.)
While exiting, Smith stated
that he wanted to see the
nurse because his back hurt.
Gonzales again instructed
Smith to return to his cell, and
told him that his staff would
notify medical staff of
Smith’s request.

UNDISPUTED

9.
Smith sat down and (Decl. Gonzales, ¶ 2.)
then lay down in front of the
Program Office door. A
Licensed Vocational Nurse
arrived, examined Smith, and
he was medically cleared to
return to his cell.

DISPUTED but not material

19

Plaintiff adds some of his own
facts but does not contradict
or dispute Fact #8 as set forth
by Defendants. (ECF No. 90
at 2 ¶ 8.)
Therefore, Defendants’ Fact
#8 is undisputed.

Plaintiff states that he did not
sit down in front of the
program office door. It was
between the program office
and the clinic.
While Plaintiff has disputed
Fact #9, his version does not
raise a genuine dispute of
material fact.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

1

FACT

2

10.
Defendant Potzernitz (Decl. Potzernitz, ¶ 2, 3.)
escorted Smith back to his
cell, and Potzernitz did not
use any physical force on
Smith.

3
4

CITATION TO EVIDENCE

5
6
7
8

11
12
13
14
15

11.
Defendants Johnson,
Castro, Flores and Meier
were in the Program Office
building at the time Gonzales
searched Smith. None of
these
Defendants
were
involved in the events, and
they did not use any physical
force on Smith. Defendant
Scaife was not present.

Plaintiff’s version raises a
genuine dispute of material
fact.

17

19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff states that defendant
Potzernitz did use force on
Plaintiff, which resulted in
injuries.
C/O Potzernitz
stood on Plaintiff’s back and
kicked,
punched,
and
stomped him in the program
office. (ECF No. 90 at 4-5 ¶
10.)

(Decl. Johnson, ¶ 2; Decl. DISPUTED
Castro, ¶ 2, 3; Decl. Meier, ¶
2; Decl. Flores, ¶ 2; Decl. Plaintiff states that C/O
Scaife, ¶ 3.)
Johnson, Castro, Flores,
Meier, and Potzernitz all
assisted Sgt. Gonzales in
taking Plaintiff down by
kicking,
stomping
and
punching all over his body.
C/O Scaife was present.
(ECF No. 90 at 5 ¶ 11.)

16

18

DISPUTED

Plaintiff’s version raises a
genuine dispute of material
fact.

9
10

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

12.
Smith was examined (Decl. Mathison, ¶ 3 and Ex. DISPUTED, not material
at the prison medical clinic at B.)
2:30 p.m. on September 24,
Plaintiff states that he was not
2013, when he complained
examined at the prison clinic
that he was hearing voices
at 2:30pm on September 24,
telling him to kill his
2013, by any medical staff.
cellmate. He did not report
No injury was reported at
any physical injuries, and
2:30pm on September 24,
none were found.
2013 because at that time
Plaintiff was suicidal. But he
was examined on September
25, 2013.
While Plaintiff has disputed
Fact #12, his version does not
raise a genuine dispute of
material fact.

25
26
27
28
18

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

1

FACT

2

13.
Smith was examined (Decl. Mathison, ¶ 3 and Ex. DISPUTED
at the prison medical clinic on B.)
September 25, 2013, when he
Plaintiff adds more facts but
reported feeling suicidal. He
does not contradict or dispute
was found to have superficial
Fact #13 as set forth by
abrasions on his shoulders
Defendants. (ECF No. 90 at 5
and left knee area.
¶ 13.) Therefore, Defendants’
Fact #13 is undisputed.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CITATION TO EVIDENCE

14.
On November 13, (Decl. Gonzales, ¶ 3 and Ex. UNDISPUTED
2013, Defendant Gonzales B.)
wrote a Form 128B General
Plaintiff adds more facts but
Chrono
titled
“Safety
does not contradict or dispute
Concerns/Closure Report,”
Fact #14 as set forth by
which stated that Smith had
Defendants. (ECF No. 90 at
reported to Gonzales having
5-6 ¶ 14.)
safety concerns in housing
with Black inmates.
Therefore, Defendants’ Fact
#14 is undisputed.
15.
Gonzales prepared the (Decl. Gonzales, ¶ 3 and Ex. DISPUTED
Form 128B in response to B.)
safety and security concerns
Plaintiff states that he did not
for Smith, other inmates and
have any conversation with
prison staff.
Sgt. Gonzales about safety
concerns. The 128B form
was written by Gonzales as a
ploy that Gonzales used to
intimidate inmates who
reported his wrongdoing.
Plaintiff did not have safety
concerns about inmates. His
safety concerns were about
officers, and he filed 602’s
against officers who did him
wrong.
Plaintiff’s version raises a
genuine dispute of material
fact.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

1

FACT

2

16.
Smith was placed and (Decl. Mathison, ¶ 2 and Ex. DISPUTED
retained in the Administrative A at pages 002-003.)
Segregation housing unit by
Plaintiff states that he was
other prison officials (other
placed and retained in
than Gonzales) based on all of
administrative
segregation
his case factors including the
based
solely
on
Form 128B, his involvement
documentation issued by Sgt.
in an in-cell fight on
Gonzales who wrote the
November 8, 2013, his
CDCR 14-D lock-up stating
history of attempting to
that Plaintiff informed him
become single celled, and his
that Black inmates were
having documented enemies
beating him up for no reason.
in the prison’s general
The in-cell fight happened on
population.
Sgt. Gonzales’s off day, and
inmate Johnson and plaintiff
signed a chrono saying they
could program on the same
yard together. Sgt. Gonzales
wrote documentation stating
that inmate Johnson and
Lewis
were
Plaintiff’s
enemies, but they were not.
Plaintiff had just transferred
to Corcoran.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

CITATION TO EVIDENCE

Plaintiff’s version raises a
genuine dispute of material
fact.

15
16
17
18
19

17.
Since
Gonzales
prepared the Form 128B,
Smith has filed 101 inmate
grievances, including twenty
grievances against prison
staff.

(Decl. Boxall, ¶ 5, 6 and Ex. UNDISPUTED
A; Decl. Williams, ¶ 5, 6 and
Ex. A; Decl. Russell, ¶ 5, 6
and Ex. A; Decl. Harder, ¶ 310 and Exs. A-G.)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20

1

FACT

CITATION TO EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

2

18.
Defendants Gonzales,
Johnson, Castro, Potzernitz,
Flores, Meier and Scaife have
never acted with a purpose or
intent to harm Smith. They
have
never
knowingly
disregarded a substantial risk
to Smith’s safety.

(Decl. Gonzales, ¶ 4; Decl.
Johnson, ¶ 4; Decl. Castro, ¶
4; Decl. Potzernitz, ¶ 4; Decl.
Flores, ¶ 3; Decl. Meier, ¶ 3;
Decl. Scaife, ¶ 4.)

DISPUTED

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff states that he told
Johnson that he was suffering
from a painful urinary
infection.
The next day,
September 24, 2013, C/O
Johnson and his partner came
to Plaintiff’s cell for a routine
cell search, no reasonable
suspicion.
For over five
minutes, Plaintiff was naked
and the 7 of them were trying
to get Plaintiff to bend over
and spread his buttocks, while
Plaintiff kept telling them he
had a urinary infection. Sgt.
Gonzales threatened to place
Plaintiff on potty watch.
They could have had Plaintiff
x-rayed, but they chose to use
force. Then they tried to
cover up the use of force.
They would make cat calls
whenever Plaintiff walked to
chow.
They tried to
intimidate Plaintiff so he
would not report what they
had done. C/O Johnson took
the first 602 and gave it to
Sgt. Gonzales who read it out
loud while the other C/Os
laughed at it. They tried to
blackmail Plaintiff with the
128-B safety chrono.
Plaintiff’s version raises a
genuine dispute of material
fact.

21
22
23
24
25

VI.

DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS
A.

There Was No Unconstitutional Retaliation By Defendant Gonzales
1.

Plaintiff Cannot Show That Defendant’s Action Was Retaliatory

26

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant Gonzales’s action in preparing

27

the Form 128B about safety concerns was retaliatory is merely speculation, which does not create

28

a material dispute of fact. Defendants assert that the undisputed facts show that defendant
21

1

Gonzales prepared the Form 128B only in response to safety and security concerns for Plaintiff,

2

other inmates and prison staff.

3

Defendant Gonzales declares:

4

“I did not prepare this document (Exhibit B) in retaliation for Smith having

5

submitted, or stating that he intended to submit, staff complaints against myself

6

or other prison staff, [and] I did not prepare this document (Exhibit B) for any

7

retaliatory purpose.”

8

(Gonzales Decl., ECF No. 87-4 at 2 ¶ 3.)

9

As evidence, Defendant Gonzales submits a copy of the Form 128B General Chrono he

10

prepared and signed concerning Plaintiff, which states in part:

11

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, inmate Smith was removed from

12

Facility III-A General Population and placed into Administrative Segregation

13

(Ad-Seg) as a result of his self-admitted Safety Concerns. . . Inmate Smith was

14

informed that he would be housed with a compatible cellmate. Inmate Smith

15

stated, “I’m not going into the cell with anyone [and] I’m not going to get beat up

16

again. The last cellmate I was with beat me up so I said I’d kill him if I stayed in

17

the cell with him.”. . . I asked inmate Smith if he fears for his safety on the facility.

18

Inmate Smith stated he believes he is being targeted by the Black inmate

19

population. I asked inmate Smith if he has safety concerns and Smith stated, “I

20

keep on getting assaulted, so yes I do.” . . . On November 8, 2013, inmate Smith

21

was involved in a fight with his cellmate, Inmate Johnson. . . . Smith was moved

22

to . . . cell 125 with inmate Law. On November 11, 2013, inmate Smith was

23

admitted into the Crisis Unit because he stated he was hearing voices to kill his

24

cellmate. . . . it is apparent inmate Smith has safety concerns among the Black

25

inmate population based on his statement.

26

(Id. at 8 (Exhibit B)).

27

///

28

///
22

1

2.

2

Defendant’s Action Did Not Chill Plaintiff’s Exercise of His Right to
File Grievances Against Prison Officials

3

Defendants argue that Defendant’s action did not chill Plaintiff’s exercise of First

4

Amendment rights because since the time of Gonzales’s alleged retaliation, Plaintiff has filed

5

over one hundred inmate grievances, including twenty against prison staff. S. Boxall, Appeals

6

Coordinator at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-SAC) declares:

7

“At the request of the Attorney General’s Office, a search of the computer

8

system was conducted under the name of Larry Smith, CDCR No. K-91850, for

9

all non-health care related grievances received by the CSP-SAC Grievance Office.

10

. . . There are thirty-three grievances listed in the Appeals History Report (Exhibit

11

A). All of the grievances listed were received by the CSP-SAC Grievance Office

12

after September 24, 2013. As shown under the column ‘Issue’ in the Appeals

13

History Report, ten of the grievances were grievances against prison staff.”

14

(Boxall Decl., ECF No. 87-5 at 2 ¶¶ 5, 6, and Exh. A.)

15

3.

Defendant’s Action Advanced Legitimate Correctional Goals

16

Defendants argue that under the disputed facts the actions taken against Plaintiff, which

17

he alleges were retaliatory, did advance legitimate correctional goals as shown by the Undisputed

18

Facts. As shown on the Form 128(b) prepared by defendant Gonzales, the safety and security

19

concerns are clear. (ECF No. 87-4, Exh. A.) James Mathison, defense counsel, submits copies

20

of the CDCR Form 114D Administrative Segregation Placement Notice, which states:

21

On November 13, 2013, you, inmate Smith (K-91850), are being removed

22

from the Facility III-A general population and re-housed in Administrative

23

Segregation Unit (Ad-Seg) due to self-expressed safety concerns. Specifically,

24

on this date, you informed Correctional Staff that you have safety concerns and

25

your life would be in jeopardy should you remain on Facility 3A. and you are

26

requesting SNY placement. Based on this, your presence on the facility presents

27

a threat to your safety, the safety of others, and jeopardizes institutional security.

28

///
23

1
2
3
4

Therefore, you will be placed in Ad-Seg pending an Administrative Review.
(Mathison Decl., ECF No. 87-9 at 4 (Exh. A).
B.

There Was No Unconstitutional Excessive Use Of Force Or Failure To
Protect

5

Under Defendants’ Undisputed Facts ##3, 4, 7, 10, and 11, Defendants declare that they

6

did not use any physical force on Plaintiff, other than defendant Johnson handcuffing Smith after

7

he refused to comply with instructions for an unclothed body search.

8

Defendant B. Johnson declares:

9

“I did not use physical force on Smith at any time during the events

10

described in the previous paragraph,7 other than to handcuff him at his cell without

11

incident. I did not see anyone use physical force on Smith at any time during

12

these events.”

13
14

(Johnson Decl. ECF No. 87-10 ¶ 3.)
Defendant Scaife declares:

15

“On September 24, 2013, I was working as a Floor Officer in Facility 3A

16

of CSPCOR. At approximately 7:15 a.m., Officer B. Johnson and I went to the

17

housing cell of Plaintiff inmate Larry Smith (CDCR #K-91850) to conduct a

18

search for contraband. As part of this search, Officer Johnson attempted to

19

conduct an unclothed body search of Smith. When Officer Johnson instructed

20

Smith to bend at the waist to permit a visual inspection of his rectum, Smith

21

refused to comply. Because of this, Officer Johnson handcuffed Smith and

22

escorted him to the Program Office, and I remained at the cell. I did not use any

23

physical force on Smith during these events. I did not see Officer Johnson use

24

physical force on Smith, other than handcuffing Smith without incident. In his

25

Complaint in this lawsuit, Smith alleges that he was assaulted by other Defendants

26
27
28

In the previous paragraph of defendant Johnson’s declaration, Johnson describes his
attempt to conduct an unclothed body search of Plaintiff while at Plaintiff’s cell on September 24, 2013.
(Johnson Decl. ECF No. 87-10 at 1 ¶ 2.)
7

24

1

at the Program Office shortly after he was escorted there by Officer Johnson. I

2

was not present during these alleged events.”

3
4

(Scaife Decl., ECF No 87-14 ¶¶ 2, 3.)
Defendant Sgt. Gonzales declares:

5

“On September 24, 2013, I worked in Facility 3A of CSP-COR. At

6

approximately 7:45 a.m., I was informed by Correctional Officer Johnson that

7

Plaintiff inmate Larry Smith (CDCR #K-91850) had refused to comply with

8

Johnson’s orders to submit to an unclothed body search for contraband, and that

9

Smith had been placed in a holding cell adjacent to the Program Office. I entered

10

the holding cell area and spoke with Smith about the situation, and of the need to

11

complete the search to ensure that he was not in possession of contraband. I

12

instructed Smith to remove his boxer shorts, and I conducted a visual search of

13

his mouth, ears, hands, fingers, underarms, and feet. I instructed Smith to step

14

out of the holding cell in order to visually inspect his rectal cavity, and to bend

15

forward at the waist and spread his buttocks, in order to conduct the inspection.

16

Smith refused to comply with this instruction, and instead he squatted and

17

coughed. After about five minutes of speaking with Smith about his failure to

18

comply with my instructions, he complied and the search was concluded.

19

Following the search, Smith dressed and I instructed him to return to his assigned

20

cell. Smith exited the Program Office and stated that he wanted to see the nurse

21

because his back hurt. I again instructed Smith to return to his cell, and told him

22

that my staff would notify medical staff of his request. Smith went into a seated

23

position and lay down in front of the Program Office door. I again instructed

24

Smith to return to his cell. Smith ignored my instruction and remained in his

25

position. A Licensed Vocational Nurse arrived at the location and conducted a

26

Form 7219 evaluation of Smith, and he was medically cleared to return to his cell.

27

I instructed my staff to retrieve a wheelchair, and I and other officers escorted

28

Smith back to his cell. I did not use physical force on Smith at any time during
25

1

these events. I did not see anyone use physical force on Smith at any time during

2

these events.”

3

(Gonzales Decl., ECF No 87-4 ¶ 2 and Exh. A (Rules Violation Report describing these same

4

events.))

5

Defendant Potzernitz declares:

6

“On September 24, 2013, I was working in the Facility 3A Program Office

7

of CSP-COR. At approximately 7:45 a.m., Sergeant Gonzales instructed me to

8

assist in escorting Plaintiff inmate Larry Smith to his cell. I did so, moving Smith

9

from his location outside of the Program Office building to his cell.

10

I did not use physical force on Smith at any time during the events

11

described in the previous paragraph. I did not see anyone else use physical force

12

on Smith at any time during these events.”

13

(Potzernitz Decl., ECF No. 87-12 ¶¶ 2, 3.)

14

Defendants Johnson, Castro, Flores and Meier declare that they were in the Program

15

Office building at the time defendant Gonzales searched Plaintiff, none of these Defendants were

16

involved in the events and they did not use any physical force on Plaintiff. (Decl. Johnson, ¶ 2;

17

Decl. Castro, ¶ 2, 3; Decl. Meier, ¶ 2; Decl. Flores, ¶ 2.) Defendant Scaife declares that she was

18

not present at the Program Office during the time that Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by

19

other Defendants after he was escorted there by defendant Johnson. (Decl. Scaife, ¶ 3.)

20

VII.

DEFENDANTS HAVE MET THEIR BURDEN

21

Based on Defendants’ arguments and evidence the court finds that Defendants have met

22

their initial burden. Therefore, the burden now shifts to Plaintiff to produce evidence of a genuine

23

material fact in dispute that would affect the final determination in this case.

24

///

25

///

26

VIII. ANALYSIS

27

Plaintiff’s evidence includes Plaintiff’s allegations in the verified First Amended

28

Complaint (ECF No. 12), Plaintiff’s verified opposition to motion for summary judgment (ECF
26

1

No. 90), Plaintiff’s verified second opposition to motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 93),

2

and prison records.

3

A.

4

On October 31, 2019, the court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim in the First

5

Amended Complaint that Sergeant Gonzales retaliated against Plaintiff for writing Form 602

6

grievances against Sergeant Gonzales, when Gonzales wrote a fictitious lock-up order against

7

Plaintiff and had Plaintiff placed in Administrative Segregation, during which time Plaintiff’s

8

personal property was taken from him. (ECF No. 16 at 20- 22 ¶ F.)

Retaliation

9

Plaintiff alleges in the verified First Amended Complaint that defendant Sergeant

10

Gonzales told Plaintiff’s clinician, Dr. Stokes, that he was placing Plaintiff in Ad-Seg for safety

11

concerns because Plaintiff had told him (Gonzales) that Plaintiff was being beaten up by the

12

Black inmates for no reason (ECF No. 12 at 16:24-27); that Sgt. Gonzales issued Plaintiff a

13

fictitious lock-up order for safety concerns and had him placed in Ad-Seg. Plaintiff further alleges

14

that he never told Sgt. Gonzales he was being beaten up and that Sgt. Gonzales made up a

15

fictitious story to suit his purpose for the lock up order and RVR (Id. at 14:27-15:2.) Plaintiff

16

contends that Sgt. Gonzales issued the safety concerns order to get back at Plaintiff for filing the

17

602 use of force appeal. (Id. at 16:15-18.) Sgt. Gonzales labeled him as a “snitch” and pressured

18

Plaintiff into being placed on a sensitive needs yard, both which placed Plaintiff in danger when

19

released back to the yard or transferred to another prison. (Id. at 16:19-17:4.)

20

Protected Conduct

21

First, Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that he wrote and filed form 602

22

grievances regarding conduct against him by Sergeant Gonzales. Plaintiff has satisfied the first

23

requirement to state a retaliation claim by alleging that he participated in the prison appeals

24

process, which is protected conduct.

25

///

26

Adverse Action

27

Second, Plaintiff claims that defendant Sergeant Gonzales took adverse actions against

28

him when Defendant issued a lock-up order against Plaintiff falsely claiming that Plaintiff had
27

1

told him (Gonzales) that Plaintiff was being beaten up by Black inmates for no reason, which

2

resulted in Plaintiff being removed from Facility III-A General Population and placed into

3

Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff also alleges that Sgt. Gonzales labeled him a “snitch,”

4

pressured him into being placed on a sensitive needs yard, and confiscated his personal property.

5

Plaintiff has sufficiently described adverse actions allegedly taken against him by Sergeant

6

Gonzales, therefore satisfying the second requirement of a retaliation claim.

7

Nexus Between Protected Conduct and Adverse Action

8

Third, Plaintiff must allege a causal connection between the adverse action(s) and the

9

protected conduct. Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that Sgt. Gonzales instructed

10

C/O Johnson to roll up Plaintiff’s property and bring it up to the program office because if

11

Plaintiff was going to file a 602 grievance for staff misconduct and use of force, then Sgt.

12

Gonzales would have Plaintiff placed in Administrative Segregation for three to six months

13

without his property. This suggests a causal connection between Plaintiff’s 602 grievances and

14

Sgt. Gonzales placing Plaintiff in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff also alleges that he

15

overheard C/O Johnson and Sgt. Gonzales conspiring in the hallway where C/O Johnson said,

16

“Inmate Smith has a history of filing staff misconduct complaints” (ECF No. 12 at 7:4-5.),

17

whereupon Sgt. Gonzales responded, “Let him go back to his cell and if he says anything we’ll

18

say he got into a fight with his cell mate.” (ECF No. 12 at 7:6-7.) This suggests a causal

19

connection between Plaintiff’s filing of staff misconduct complaints and Gonzales’s threat to

20

cover up the excessive force incident against Plaintiff.

21

Sgt. Gonzales’s statements to C/O Johnson are admissions of a party opponent and do not

22

constitute inadmissible hearsay.8 Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged admissible facts that suggest

23

a nexus between his First Amendment activities and the adverse actions by defendant Sgt.

24

Gonzales, which satisfies the third requirement for stating a retaliation claim.

25

Chilling Effect of Future First Amendment Activities

26
27
28

8

The statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D).
Holzhauer v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation Dist., 745 F. App’x 265, 268 (9th Cir. 2018)
28

1

Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official’s acts would chill or silence a person of

2

ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568 (internal

3

quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A] plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling effect may

4

still state a claim if he alleges he suffered some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that is

5

“more than minimal,” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11.

6

Defendants argue that any retaliatory conduct by Sergeant Gonzales did not chill Plaintiff

7

from filing additional 602 complaints because computer records show that after September 24,

8

2013, the CSP-SAC Grievance Office received thirty-three non-health care grievances from

9

Plaintiff, with ten of them against prison staff. (Boxall Decl., ECF No. 87-5 at 2 ¶¶ 5, 6, and

10

Exh. A.) However, Defendants’ evidence is not conclusive.9 Focusing on whether or not the

11

record showed that Plaintiff was actually chilled would be incorrect. In Rhodes, the Ninth Circuit

12

“explicitly held that an objective standard governs the chilling inquiry; a plaintiff does not have

13

to show that ‘his speech was actually inhibited or suppressed,’ but rather that the adverse action

14

at issue ‘would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment

15

activities.” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568–69,

16

quoting Mendocino Enviro. Center v. Mendocino Cty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999)

17

(emphasis in original)). “To hold otherwise ‘would be unjust’ as it would ‘allow a defendant to

18

escape liability for a First Amendment violation merely because an unusually determined

19

plaintiff persists in his protected activity.’” Brodheim , 584 F.3d at 1271 (quoting Rhodes at

20

569). “[T]he comment in Rhodes at footnote 1110 suggests that adverse action which is more

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

The prisoner need not demonstrate a total chilling of his First Amendment rights in
order to establish a retaliation claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 at 568-69 (9th Cir. 2005)
(rejecting the argument that an inmate did not state a claim for relief because he had been able to file
inmate grievances and a lawsuit).
Footnote 11: “If Rhodes had not alleged a chilling effect, perhaps his allegations that
he suffered harm would suffice, since harm that is more than minimal will almost always have a chilling
effect. Alleging harm and alleging the chilling effect would seem under the circumstances to be no more
than a nicety. See, e.g., Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (deciding that alleged harm was enough to ground a First
Amendment retaliation claim without independently discussing whether the harm had a chilling effect);
Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir.1989) (same).” Rhodes, 408 F.3d 559, 568
f.n.11 (9th Cir. 2005)
10

29

1

than minimal satisfies this element[, and t]hus, if this reading of Rhodes is correct, the chilling

2

effect element is essentially subsumed by adverse action.” Chatman v. Medina, No. 2:11-cv-

3

0681-MCE-CMK-P, 2014 WL 1155565 at *15 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2014.)

4

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Gonzales issued a lock-up order against Plaintiff

5

falsely claiming that Plaintiff had told him (Gonzales) that Plaintiff was being beaten up by Black

6

inmates for no reason, which resulted in Plaintiff being removed from Facility III-A General

7

Population and placed into Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff also alleges that Sgt. Gonzales

8

labeled him a “snitch” and pressured him into being placed on a sensitive needs yard.

9

The court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations related to the non-minimal adverse actions he

10

suffered are sufficient to also demonstrate the required chilling effect. Id.. Therefore, Plaintiff

11

has satisfied the fourth requirement for stating a claim for retaliation.

12

Action Did Not Advance Legitimate Penological Goals

13

Fifth, the plaintiff must allege “that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not

14

advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution. . . .” Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527,

15

532 (9th Cir.1985).

16

Defendants have shown that the Form 128(b) prepared by defendant Gonzales expresses

17

his safety and security concerns (ECF No. 87-4, Exh. A), and the CDCR Form 114D

18

Administrative Segregation Placement Notice states that Plaintiff is being removed from the

19

general population and re-housed in Ad-Seg due to Plaintiff expressing that he has “safety

20

concerns and his life would be in jeopardy should [he] remain on Facility 3A.” (Mathison Decl.,

21

ECF No. 87-9 at 4 (Exh. A). Keeping inmates safe and secure is undoubtedly a legitimate

22

penological goal.

23

However, Plaintiff’s evidence shows that some of Sgt. Gonzales’s retaliatory actions did

24

not advance legitimate penological goals. (ECF No. 12 at 19:3-5.) Defendant Sgt. Gonzales’s

25

alleged threats -- to have Plaintiff placed in Administrative Segregation for three to six months

26

without his property, and to cover up evidence that excessive force was used against Plaintiff –

27

do not advance any legitimate penological goals, as “the mere threat of harm can be an adverse

28

action. . . .” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1270. If true, Defendants have not shown how either labelling
30

1

Plaintiff a “snitch” and pressuring him into being placed on a sensitive needs yard, where he

2

would be at further risk of harm by other inmates, or confiscating Plaintiff’s personal property

3

and never returning it, would advance a legitimate penological goal.

4

The court finds therefore that Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue

5

of fact as to whether Defendant took adverse actions against Plaintiff because Plaintiff filed

6

prison grievances. Accordingly, the court shall recommend that Defendant Gonzales be denied

7

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.

8

B.

9

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation

10

of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . .whether force was

11

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to

12

cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6–7 (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–21 (1986)).

13

In making this determination, the Court may evaluate (1) the extent of any injury suffered by

14

Plaintiff; (2) the need for application of force; (3) the relationship between that need and the

15

amount of force used; (4) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible prison officials; and

16

(5) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 (citing

17

Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321).

Excessive Force And Failure To Protect

18

“Because the excessive force inquiry nearly always requires a jury to sift through disputed

19

factual contentions, and to draw inferences therefrom, [the Ninth Circuit has] held on many

20

occasions that summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law in excessive force causes should

21

be granted sparingly.” Avina v. U.S., 681 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

22

There are two incidents of excessive force alleged by Plaintiff in this case. One allegedly

23

took place on September 24, 2013 at approximately 7:15 a.m., after defendant C/O Johnson

24

attempted to conduct an unclothed body search on Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff alleges

25

that after C/O Johnson failed to conduct the body search, he grabbed Plaintiff by the arm and the

26

back of his head and slammed his face into the wall, busting Plaintiff’s mouth, and then

27

handcuffed him. (ECF No. 12 at 5 ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also alleges that C/O Johnson grabbed him by

28
31

1

the hand, still handcuffed, bent his wrist very aggressively, escorted Plaintiff to the Program

2

Office, and placed him into a holding cage. (Id.)

3

The second incident allegedly took place later the same day, on September 24, 2013 at

4

approximately 7:45 a.m. at the Program Office. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sgt. Gonzales

5

unlocked the holding cage and instructed him to exit, then ordered Plaintiff to bend forward at

6

the waist and grab his buttocks and spread them open so Sgt. Gonzales could check for

7

contraband. (ECF No. 12 at 6:12-15.) Plaintiff refused to cooperate, and defendant Sgt. Gonzales

8

grabbed Plaintiff and instructed the other officers to take Plaintiff down. (Id. at 6:19-21.) Plaintiff

9

alleges that defendants Johnson, Castro, Meier, Flores, and Potzernitz all attacked Plaintiff,

10

forcing him to the ground naked while defendant C/O Scaife stood by and watched the assault.

11

(Id. at 6:21:5, 21-28.) Plaintiff alleges that he was kicked and stomped in the head, shoulders,

12

back, and legs, causing abrasions and bruises. (Id.) C/O Meier and C/O Flores grabbed Plaintiff’s

13

ankles and forced his legs apart, so that defendant Sgt. Gonzales was able to complete the body

14

search. (Id.)

15

Here, Defendants’ account of the alleged use of force in their undisputed facts is entirely

16

different from Plaintiff’s. Each of the Defendants filed a declaration signed under penalty of

17

perjury declaring that they did not use any physical force at any time during the events against

18

Plaintiff, except to apply handcuffs. (ECF No. 87-4 at 2:16-17;. ECF 87-10 at 2 ¶ 3; ECF No.

19

87-11 at 2 ¶ 3; ECF No. 87-12 at 2 ¶ 3; ECF No. 87-13 at 1 ¶ 2; 87-14 at 2 ¶ 2; ECF No. 87-15

20

at 2 ¶ 3.) Defendants conclude that defendant Scaife is not liable for failing to protect Plaintiff

21

from defendant Johnson’s use of force because defendant Johnson did not use force. (ECF No.

22

87-2 at 8:24-25.) In the alternative, Defendants contend that accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as

23

true, there is no Eighth Amendment violation because Defendants used minimal force in response

24

to Plaintiff’s misbehavior. (Id. at 8:26-9:7.) Defendants also argue that taking the facts in the

25

light most favorable to Plaintiff, they are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 87-2 at 12-

26

10.)

27

Whether Defendants used no force, minimal force, or excessive force, and whether

28

defendant Scaife failed to protect Plaintiff from excessive force are questions for the jury at trial.
32

1

These factual disputes, all of which require a trier of fact to make credibility determinations,

2

preclude a dispositive finding at summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force and failure to

3

protect claims. These multiple genuine disputes of material fact preclude this court’s ruling as

4

a matter of law, including on qualified immunity grounds, in Defendants’ favor.

5

Accordingly, the court shall recommend that summary judgment be denied as to

6

Plaintiff’s excessive force and failure to protect claims.

7

IX.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8

Drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the court finds that Plaintiff

9

has submitted sufficient admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact

10

regarding whether defendant Sgt. Gonzales retaliated against him for filing Form 602 grievances

11

against Sgt. Gonzales-- thus genuine issues of material fact preclude entry of summary judgment.

12

Therefore, the court shall recommend that summary judgment be denied on Plaintiff’s claim for

13

retaliation against defendant Gonzales.

14

With respect to Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force and failure to protect Plaintiff in

15

violation of the Eighth Amendment, the court has also determined that genuine issues of material

16

fact preclude entry of judgment.
Based on the foregoing, the court shall recommend that Defendants’ motion for summary

17
18

judgment, filed on December 21, 2020, be denied.

19

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

20

1.

The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Sgt. Gonzales, C/O

21

Johnson, C/O Castro, C/O Meier, C/O Flores, C/O Potzernitz, and C/O Scaife on

22

December 21, 2020, be DENIED;

23

2.

This case now proceed against defendants Sergeant Gonzales, Correctional

24

Officer (C/O) Johnson, C/O Castro, C/O Meier, C/O Flores, and C/O Potzernitz

25

for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against

26

defendant Sergeant Gonzales for retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of the

27
28

///
First Amendment; and against defendant C/O Scaife for failure to protect Plaintiff
33

1

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

2

3.

3

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

4

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

5

fourteen days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may

6

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

7

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

8

and filed within ten days of the date the objections are filed. The parties are advised that failure

9

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

10

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

11

(9th Cir. 1991)).

This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 16, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34