Locklear v. Schwiner et al
Filing
40
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 06/06/11 recommending that defendants' 11/18/10 motion for summary judgment be granted; and judgment be entered in this action in accordance with any order of the district court adopting these findings and recommendations and the 10/20/10 order of the district court dismissing defendant Clay. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 37 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CLIFFORD LOCKLEAR,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. 2:09-cv-2594-MCE-JFM (PC)
vs.
DR. SCHWINER, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to
17
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants Correctional Officer Solorzano and
18
Correctional Sergeant Orrick violated his constitutional rights by having plaintiff removed from
19
his job under false pretenses and acted intentionally to exacerbate plaintiff’s mental illness so
20
that he would hurt himself or others. This matter is before the court on the motion for defendants
21
Orrick and Solorzano for summary judgment.1
22
/////
23
/////
24
25
26
1
A third defendant, Sergeant Clay, was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies with respect to his claim against said defendant prior to suit. See
Findings and Recommendations filed September 14, 2010; Order filed October 20, 2010.
1
1
2
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS UNDER RULE 56
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists “no
3
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
4
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
5
Under summary judgment practice, the moving party
6
8
always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court
of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
9
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “[W]here the
7
10
nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary
11
judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers
12
to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’” Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered,
13
after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
14
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
15
party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof
16
concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts
17
immaterial.” Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as
18
whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary
19
judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323.
20
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the
21
opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See
22
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to
23
establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the
24
allegations or denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the
25
form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the
26
dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party
2
1
must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome
2
of the suit under the governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
3
(1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
4
1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
5
return a verdict for the nonmoving party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433,
6
1436 (9th Cir. 1987).
7
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party
8
need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
9
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing
10
versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary
11
judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a
12
genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory
13
committee’s note on 1963 amendments).
14
In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings,
15
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
16
any. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed. See Anderson,
17
477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the
18
court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
19
Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to
20
produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen
21
Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir.
22
1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply
23
show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken
24
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no
25
‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).
26
/////
3
1
On November 24, 2009, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for
2
opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v.
3
Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and
4
Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).
5
6
7
8
9
10
ANALYSIS
I. Facts
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed September 16, 2009, contains the following allegations
against defendants Solorzano and Orrick:
C/O Solorzano and Sgt. Orrick had me removed from my job under
false pretenses, and for 2 days told nothing because they knew I
was a mental pateint [sic]. No classification and know [sic]
appropriate reson [sic]....
11
12
13
C/O Solorzano, Supv. Third Watch, did everything possible to hurt
me, I was removed from my job and assignment. Him and Sgt.
Orrick knew just what to do to have me blow up and hurt myself
and others, so when they heart that I cut my wrists they had
completed the mission....
14
15
Complaint, filed September 16, 2009, at 3-4.
16
An inmate grievance submitted by plaintiff to prison officials on January 15, 2009
17
demonstrates that the claims at bar arose from events on December 15 or 16, 2008, when plaintiff
18
was told to pack his property for a move from Building #8 to Building #11 at California State
19
Prison-Solano (CSP-Solano). At the time, plaintiff was working as a porter in Building 8.
20
In support of their motion, defendants have presented evidence that plaintiff was
21
moved from Building #8 because of a cell door retrofit that was occurring in his building. See
22
Declaration of C. Ferguson in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed
23
November 18, 2010, at ¶ 3. Lt. Ferguson also avers that plaintiff was not removed from his
24
porter assignment in Building #8 even after he was moved to another building. Id. Documents
25
appended to the Ferguson Declaration show that plaintiff held the lead porter position in Building
26
8 from December 18, 2004 through December 23, 2008. See California State Prison-Solano,
4
1
Inmate Job Assignment, Inmate Assignment History, included in Ex. A to Ferguson Declaration.
2
Defendants have also presented evidence that neither of them had any authority to remove an
3
inmate from a job assignment, and that neither of them had plaintiff removed from his porter
4
position. See Declaration of Cheryl Orrick in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
5
Judgment, filed November 18, 2010 (Orrick Declaration), at ¶¶ 4,5; Declaration of Aaron
6
Solorzano in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 18, 2010
7
(Solorzano Declaration), at ¶¶ 3,4. Finally, defendants have presented evidence that neither of
8
them had or have “any knowledge concerning [plaintiff]’s mental health status.” Orrick
9
Declaration at ¶ 6; Solorzano Declaration at ¶ 5.
10
Although plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion, he has not presented any evidence
11
with that opposition. Plaintiff’s complaint is signed under penalty of perjury and “may be
12
considered as an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment if it is based on personal
13
knowledge and sets forth specific facts admissible in evidence.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
14
1132 n.14 (9th Cir. 2000).
15
II. Defendants’ Motion
16
Defendants seek summary judgment on the grounds that (1) they did not deprive
17
plaintiff of any constitutional right; and (2) there is no evidence that they were deliberately
18
indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff. In support of their motion, defendants
19
contend that plaintiff has no constitutional right to a job while in prison and, in any event, that
20
neither of them had any authority to remove plaintiff from his porter job and that plaintiff was
21
not removed from his porter job following his move from Building #8. Defendants also contend
22
that they had no knowledge of plaintiff’s mental health status and therefore would not have
23
known about possible impacts on plaintiff’s mental health from the events at bar.
24
The evidence tendered by defendants in support of their motion for summary
25
judgment establishes that (1) plaintiff was moved from Building #8 due to a cell door retrofit
26
project; (2) plaintiff remained in his porter job for at least twelve days following the move; (3)
5
1
neither defendant had any authority to, nor did, remove plaintiff from his porter job; and (4)
2
neither defendant had knowledge of plaintiff’s mental health status or possible impacts of a
3
building move on plaintiff’s mental health. The averments of plaintiff’s complaint are
4
insufficient to create a triable issue of material fact with respect to any of the foregoing facts.
5
Accordingly, this court finds that there is no evidence to support either of plaintiff’s claims. For
6
that reason, defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
7
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
8
1. Defendants’ November 18, 2010 motion for summary judgment be granted;
9
and
10
2. Judgment be entered in this action in accordance with any order of the district
11
court adopting these findings and recommendations and the October 20, 2010 order of the district
12
court dismissing defendant Clay.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
14
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
15
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
17
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
18
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
19
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
20
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
DATED: June 6, 2011.
22
23
24
25
12;lock2594.msj
26
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?