Brandon v. Williams, et al.

Filing 78

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/3/19 ADOPTING in full 64 the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff's 49 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendants' 39 , 45 Cross Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAIAN BRANDON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2883-TLN-DMC

v.

ORDER

L. WILLIAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District

19

of California local rules.
On February 1, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (“F&R”)

20
21

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file

22

objections within fourteen days. (ECF No. 64.) Timely objections to the findings and

23

recommendations have been filed. (ECF Nos. 65, 67, and 70.)

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this

25

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

26

Court finds the F&R to be supported by the record and by proper analysis, however, the Court

27

will clarify a few issues raised in the parties’ objections to the F&R.

28

///
1

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

1

A.

2

Plaintiff’s motion asserts that no issue of material fact exists as to his Eighth Amendment

3

claim against Defendants. (ECF No. 49 at 1.) Prison officials have a duty to protect other

4

prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828. To prevail on a failure-to-protect case, a

5

plaintiff must establish that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” — which has both

6

subjective and objective components. Id. At 842. The objective component requires that an

7

inmate prove the presence of a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 824 (citing Helling v.

8

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). An isolated incident of violence is not necessarily sufficient

9

to prove the inmate faced a substantial risk of harm. Flournoy v. Merced Cty. Sherriff’s Dep’t, 44

10

F. App’x 843, 844 (9th Cir. 2002). The subjective element factors in the “facts and circumstances

11

of each particular case.” Castro v. City of L.A., 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing

12

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015)). For an inmate to face a substantial risk

13

of harm, the circumstances must show the risk of harm was more than speculative. Contreras v.

14

Collins, 50 F. App’x 351, 352 (9th Cir. 2002).

15

In determining Defendants met the objective element, the magistrate judge relied solely on

16

Plaintiff’s evidence asserting the substantial risk of serious harm he allegedly faced. (ECF No. 64

17

at 11.) However, the Court will also consider Defendants’ evidence in its de novo review of

18

Plaintiff’s motion. In the instant case, Defendants Busig and Hendricks acknowledge they

19

received a request from Plaintiff for a cell reassignment. (ECF No. 45-2 ¶ 19; ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 4.)

20

However, Defendants each assert no prior knowledge of any specific safety concerns that would

21

result in physical harm to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 45-2 ¶ 21, 23-24, 26; ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 3.) Further,

22

Plaintiff had no “documented enemy concerns” with his cellmate prior to the altercation in

23

question. (ECF No. 45-2 ¶ 18.) In contrast, Plaintiff proffers evidence that he expressed “safety

24

concerns” to each of the named Defendants. (ECF No. 49 at 6.) Therefore, the parties’ evidence

25

exposes a triable factual issue that will be dispositive as to whether Plaintiff faced a substantial

26

risk of harm. Consequentially, the Court cannot definitively conclude the objective element is

27

met.

28

The Court agrees with the F&R’s determination that the subjective element of Plaintiff’s
2

1

failure-to-protect claim involves a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 49.) is

2

accordingly DENIED.
Defendant Hendricks’ Motion

3

B.

4

Defendant Hendricks’ objections to the F&R allege that the magistrate judge relied on

5

evidence which contradicts Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. (ECF No. 67 at 2.) Specifically, he

6

alleges that the magistrate judge “creates[s] an issue of fact” by citing Plaintiff’s declaration.

7

(ECF No. 67 at 2.) While it is true that a party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit

8

contradicting prior deposition testimony, Foster v. Arcata Assocs., 772 F.2d 1453, 1462 (9th Cir.

9

1985), the magistrate judge does not rely on such evidence. While Plaintiff’s deposition from

10

March does not mirror the exact language of Plaintiff’s affidavit, the factual assertions do not

11

contradict. (ECF No. 39-4 at 5–7; ECF No. 49 at 8.) In his deposition, Plaintiff did not specify

12

Hendricks’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s safety concerns, (ECF No. 39-4 at 5–7), however, Plaintiff

13

described other evidence, including declarations of other inmates, highlighting material issues of

14

fact relating to Hendricks’ awareness of potential physical harm to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 49 at 8,

15

16, 42, 45.) Later, in his affidavit, Plaintiff mentioned that Hendricks had knowledge of the

16

purported safety concerns. (ECF No. 49 at 2, 8, 9–11.) While additional information was

17

alleged, it did not in fact, contradict. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Hendricks’

18

objections are unavailing and his motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 39) is hereby

19

DENIED.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1.

22

The Findings and Recommendations filed February 1, 2019, (ECF No. 64) are

ADOPTED in full;

23

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49) is DENIED; and

24

3.

Defendants’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 39 and 45) are

25

DENIED.

26

Dated: September 3, 2019

27
28
3

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge