Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00727/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00727-8/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD P. BOUSHELL,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0727 OWW WMW PC 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 RE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC 25)

SGT. SMALLWOOD,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a former Kern County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Defendant

Smallwood’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e).

The operative pleading in this case is the August 2, 2006, first amended complaint. The

event that gives rise to this complaint is a “raid”that occurred at the Kern County Detention

Facility, A Pod, on April 9, 2005. Plaintiff alleges that the raid was conducted by eleven

Detention Officers. Plaintiff alleges that the Detention Officers were “destroying everything

they could touch.” (Am. Compl. 2:28). Plaintiff also alleges that the Detention Officers used

hand signals to indicate to each other, regarding Plaintiff, to “fuck-him-up.” Id., 3:8.

Plaintiff specifically alleges the following:

Case 1:05-cv-00727-OWW -WMW Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

 Two youn D/O’s immediately put double wristlocks on me. They

pushed and shoved me out the door into the BIRD-CAGE-AREA

and then the door slammed closed. At this point, it was over. I

submitted to them by allowing them to place handcuffs on me

behind my back. The two yound D/O’s were not very big, 150 and

165 lbs. respectively. Leaving the BIRD-CAGE-AREA with one

D/O on each arm, we seemed to be going awfully fast exiting and

down the hall I could hardly keep up. My slippers were falling off. 

As I looked down the hallway, I saw why they were going so fast. 

The fire doors were closed. The fire doors have a stainless steel

push handle in the middle about 36" off the floor. The D/O to my

right was about 165 lbs; the one on my left was about 150 lbs. 

Sure enough, they rammed me head first through the closed fire

doors. This action did two things. 1) The handle on the door cut

and bruised my right eye area to the bone. 2). The handle also

knocked off my eyeglasses; both lenses flew out and I heard them

skidding across the floor.

At this point, I yelled three times “my glasses, my glasses, my

glasses.” The two D/Os did not respond. That is they didn’t

acknowledge my glasses were on the floor or anything. They just

kept pushing me down the hall. My weight at that time was about

238 lbs. At this point, I went “wheels-up” into a GHANDI crouch

and folded my legs in a leg over leg fashion. The D/O on my left

went ballistic. He yelled “get up,” and started kicking me in my

left rib cage. By the third kick I un-wound my legs. He tripped

over my now extended legs. A third D/O seeing the trouble the

first two guard were having rushed up with pepper spray and

subsequently sprayed it into my eyes. Thus, preventing me from

visually experiencing any other details of this continued assault. 

Id. 3:9-4:9. 

Plaintiff’s sole allegation as to Defendant Smallwood is that he directed the conduct at

issue. Plaintiff has not identified any of the Detention Officer defendants, and they have not been

served. The motion to dismiss that is before the court is brought by Defendant Sergeant

Smallwood.

Sergeant Smallwood moves for dismissal on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege

facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. Specifically, Sergeant Smallwood argues that there are

no allegations that he personally participated in the deprivation at issue. Defendant Smallwood

also filed a pleading titled as a Reply Re: Non-opposition to Motion to Dismiss. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a

Case 1:05-cv-00727-OWW -WMW Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion..." The court will deem plaintiff's failure

to oppose defendant's motion to dismiss a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on

that basis.

Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v.

Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for plaintiff's

failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to

oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v.Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9

th

Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 119 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he

did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b),

and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, No. 93-5022, slip op. 99, 105-06 (9th Cir. Jan.

4, 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for

summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an

appropriate exercise of discretion).

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. On November 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

single page document titled as a “Motion to go to trial.” Plaintiff requests the court to proceed

to trial and “dismiss the motion to dismiss.” Plaintiff’s document does not address any of

Defendant’s arguments. Plaintiff does not opposes Defendant Smallwood’s argument that he

fails to allege facts sufficient to hold Sergeant Smallwood liable. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be

granted, and this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendant’s motion to

dismiss.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

Case 1:05-cv-00727-OWW -WMW Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s

findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00727-OWW -WMW Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 4