Gosnell v. U.S. Marshals Dep.
Filing
55
ORDER ADOPTING 54 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; granting 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. Any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 1/24/2018. Mailed to Gosnell (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
DOUGLAS JAMES GOSNELL,
Plaintiff,
CV-15-153-M-BMM
vs.
CHRIS STROMMEN,
ORDER
Defendant.
Plaintiff Douglas Gosnell (Gosnell) is a former federal prisoner proceeding
pro se. The only remaining claim in this matter is Gosnell’s Fifth Amendment
failure-to-protect claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Gosnell alleges that Deputy United
States Marshal Chris Strommen (Deputy Strommen) violated his rights under the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to take action to
protect him from an assault that allegedly occurred at the Missoula County
Detention Center (MCDF) on December 5, 2015.
Gosnell alleges that Deputy Strommen transported him to MCDF on
December 5, 2015, from the Crossroads Correctional Center in Shelby, Montana.
Gosnell alleges that an unknown booking officer at MCDF punched him in the eye
shortly after Deputy Strommen had “left the booking area.” (Doc. 18 at 5). Gosnell
contends that he possesses a viable failure-to-protect claim against Deputy
Strommen because Deputy Strommen transported him to MCDF on December 5,
2015, knowing that four MCDF officers had assaulted him in his holding cell at
MCDF on August 10, 2015.
Deputy Strommen filed a motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2017.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendations on December 19, 2017. (Doc. 54). Judge Lynch recommended
that this Court grant Deputy Strommen’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54
at 8). Judge Lynch determined that Deputy Strommen was entitled to summary
judgment because the undisputed facts established that Gosnell could not satisfy the
elements of a failure-to-protect claim. (Doc. 54 at 5-7). Gosnell did not file
objections to Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations.
The Court has reviewed Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations for
clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d
1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds no error in Judge Lynch’s Findings
and Recommendations, and adopts them in full.
To prove a Fifth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, a prisoner must show:
1.
The defendant made an intentional decision with
respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff
was confined;
-2-
2.
Those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial
risk of suffering serious harm;
3.
The defendant did not take reasonable available
measures to abate that risk, even though a
reasonable officer in the circumstances would have
appreciated the high degree of risk involved —
making the consequences of the defendant’s
conduct obvious; and
4.
By not taking such measures, the defendant caused
the plaintiff’s injuries.
Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016).
The Court agrees with Judge Lynch that Gosnell’s failure-to-protect claim
fails as a matter of law. Deputy Strommen has submitted an Affidavit in which he
attests that he did not transport Gosnell to MCDF in December 2015. (Doc. 44 at
2). Gosnell has produced no evidence to the contrary. Second, Judge Lynch has
reviewed the surveillance video of the holding cell at MCDF where Gosnell was
held on August 10, 2015. (See Doc. 54 at 6). The surveillance video contained no
evidence of an assault against Gosnell by any MCDF officer. Id.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 41) is GRANTED.
2.
This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3.
Any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith as
Plaintiff’s claims clearly lack merit.
-3-
4.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
DATED this 24th day of January, 2018.
-4-
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?