Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01280-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C/O MARTINEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01280-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 157.)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 121.)

George E. Jacobs IV (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 11, 2014, the 

Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) was entered, recommending that Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Doc. 157. On May 12, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed objections to the F&R. Doc. 161.

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

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

including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that all parts of the F&R are supported by the 

record and proper analysis except for the finding and recommendation to grant summary 

judgment on the excessive force claim against Correctional Sergeant J.M. Martinez.

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 162 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The F&R states that:

“The Court finds that Defendants German and Northcutt have not met 

their burden on summary judgment. Defendants’ evidence creates a triable issue 

of fact as to whether force was used on Plaintiff in a good faith effort to 

maintain discipline or for the purpose of causing harm. Defendants’ 

declarations establish that neither German nor Northcutt punched Plaintiff once 

he was in his cell, and that Defendants needed to maintain a secure hold on 

Plaintiff because of his history of assaultive behavior. In his deposition, 

however, Plaintiff testified that he offered no physical or verbal resistance, and 

that he was repeatedly punched by one Defendant while the other stood on his 

ankle chain and forced Plaintiff’s body up, cutting into his ankles such that 

scarring resulted. Plaintiff further testified that Defendant German, without 

provocation, punched him in the right eye when he was placed in his cell.

. . .

As to Defendant Martinez, the Court finds that he has met his burden on 

summary judgment. Defendant Martinez declared that he did not use force on 

Plaintiff, and that it was necessary to maintain a secure hold on Plaintiff due to 

his history of assaultive behavior. In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that 

Martinez did not physically touch him. In his opposition, Plaintiff establishes 

that Martinez was present, but does not come forward with any evidence th[at] 

Martinez struck Plaintiff, or in any way subjected Plaintiff to excessive force. 

The complaint, considered as a declaration, establishes that Martinez was one of 

five officers that dragged Plaintiff to his cell. Nothing in the complaint 

establishes that Martinez subjected Plaintiff to excessive force. The motion for 

summary judgment should therefore be granted in Defendant Martinez’s favor 

on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force.”

Doc. 157, 10:21-12:5 (footnotes omitted).

However, even though there is no evidence that Defendant Martinez ever personally 

struck Plaintiff, this Court declines to grant summary judgment in his favor as it is well 

established that officers have “a duty to intercede when their fellow officers violate the 

constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen.” United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1447 

n. 25 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing O'Neill v. Krzeminski, 839 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1988); Byrd v. 

Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir. 1986); Bruner v. Dunaway, 684 F.2d 422, 425–26 (6th 

Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1171 (1983); Putman v. Gerloff, 639 F.2d 415, 423 (8th Cir.

1981); Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972)), rev'd on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 

(1996). Officers can be held liable for failing to intercede only if they had an opportunity to 

intercede. See Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended 

(Oct. 31, 2000) (citing Bruner, 684 F.2d at 426–27 (holding that officers who were not present 

at the time of the alleged assault could not be held liable in a section 1983 action); Gaudreault 

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 162 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

v. Municipality of Salem, 923 F.2d 203, 207 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1990) (granting arresting officers' 

motion for summary judgment because the officers had no “realistic opportunity” to prevent an 

attack committed by another officer)). The F&R found, and this Court agrees, that the evidence 

creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendants German and Northcutt used excessive 

force on Plaintiff. In his opposition, submitted as a declaration signed under penalty of perjury,

Plaintiff establishes that Martinez was present to the alleged use of excessive force while 

Plaintiff was escorted from the Suicide Unit to the Security Housing Unit. Doc. 137. 

Consequently, there is also a triable issue of fact as to whether Officer Martinez had an 

opportunity to intercede on the alleged use of excessive force by Defendants German and 

Northcutt.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. All parts of the Findings and Recommendations, issued by the Magistrate Judge 

on April 11, 2014, are ADOPTED except for the finding and recommendation 

pertaining to the excessive force claim against Officer Martinez; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on May 25, 2010, is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant 

Martinez on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs;

4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to Defendants German, 

Northcutt, and Martinez on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force;

5. Defendants Does 1 and 2 are DISMISSED from this action; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 162 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 3