Pamplin v. Baker et al

Filing 87

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 86 ) is accepted and adopted in full.Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69 ) is denied, except as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Deprivation of Property Claim. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/25/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JOHN DAVID PAMPLIN,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00745-MMD-CLB
Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER

v.
9
WARDEN BAKER, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12
13

I.

SUMMARY

14

Plaintiff John David Pamplin, an incarcerated person in the custody of the Nevada

15

Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), filed this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

17

William G. Cobb (“R&R”) (ECF No. 86) recommending that the Court grant in part and

18

deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 69). The

19

parties had until March 19, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no objection has been filed.

20

For that reason, and because the Court agrees with Judge Cobb, the Court will adopt the

21

R&R.

22

II.

BACKGROUND
The Court adopts the facts in the R&R (ECF No. 86 at 1-3) and does not recite

23
24

them here.

25

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

A.

Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations

27

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

28

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

1

fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any

2

issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);

3

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of

4

the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both

5

parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed.

6

R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy

7

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

8

recommendation”).

9

B.

Summary Judgment Standard

10

“The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no

11

dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 18

12

F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings,

13

the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there is no genuine

14

issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

15

law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if there is

16

a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the

17

nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the suit under

18

the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Where

19

reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary judgment

20

is not appropriate. See id. at 250-51. “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a

21

genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties'

22

differing versions of the truth at trial.’” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th

23

Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). In

24

evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in

25

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach &

26

Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).

27

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of

28

material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once the
2

1

moving party satisfies Rule 56’s requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the

2

motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson,

3

477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must

4

produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show

5

that the dispute exists,” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991),

6

and “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the

7

material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita

8

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). “The mere existence of

9

a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient.” Anderson,

10

477 U.S. at 252.

11

IV.

DISCUSSION

12

While the parties have failed to timely object to the R&R, the Court has nevertheless

13

conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Having reviewed the

14

R&R (ECF No. 86) and the Motion (ECF No. 69), the Court agrees with Judge Cobb and

15

adopts the R&R in full.

16

Judge Cobb recommended that the Court grant the Motion as to Plaintiff’s

17

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for unlawful deprivation of his property

18

because Plaintiff had a meaningful post-deprivation remedy in the grievance process (see

19

Greene v. Nev. Dept. Of Corrections, 2015 WL 1034276, * 5 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2015)) and

20

Plaintiff had recourse to small claims court (see NRS §§ 41.0322, 73.010, and 41.031).

21

(ECF No. 86 at 6-7.) See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding that an

22

unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a

23

due process violation if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available).

24

In contrast, Judge Cobb recommended that the Court deny the Motion on Plaintiff’s

25

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

26

(ECF No. 86 at 14.) Although Defendants contend that they did not act with deliberate

27

indifference because they provided Plaintiff with medical appointments, medication and

28

an ankle brace (ECF No. 86 at 10), the Court agrees with Judge Cobb that Defendants
3

1

rely on medical records (ECF Nos. 71-3, 71-4) that are somewhat illegible and appear to

2

be incomplete. (ECF No. 86 at 11.) Without further evidence, it is unclear to the Court that

3

Defendants adequately addressed Plaintiff’s medical needs. (Id.)

4

Finally, Judge Cobb recommended that the Court deny the Motion on the issue of

5

qualified immunity. (ECF No. 86 at 12-14.) Defendants contend they are entitled to

6

qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right when they

7

confiscated Plaintiff’s brace. (See ECF No. 86 at 13.) But Defendants state the issue too

8

narrowly. See Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1285-86 (9th Cir. 2001) (clarifying that

9

qualified immunity does not require that a prior case prohibit the exact misconduct at issue

10

in the case); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (“[O]fficials can be on notice that

11

their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.”). Here,

12

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right when

13

Defendants consciously disregarded an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health and chose a

14

course of treatment that was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. (ECF No.

15

86 at 13). As Judge Cobb pointed out, this constitutes a violation of clearly established

16

law. (Id. at 13-14.) See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).

17

V.

CONCLUSION

18

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

19

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

20

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before

21

the Court.

22

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and

23

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 86) is accepted and

24

adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69)

25
26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

is denied, except as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process deprivation of

2

property claim.

3

DATED THIS 25th day of March 2020.

4
5

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5