Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN ELLIS,

NO. CIV. S-04-1483 LKK/CMK P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

ALBONICO, et al

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief

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 General Order No. 262. On February 7, 2007 the magistrate

judge recommended that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be

granted. The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations, as well as the plaintiff’s objections to the

findings and recommendations. As discussed below, the court

declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 57 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Also pending before the magistrate judge was defendants’ 1

motion to dismiss. Because the motion for summary judgment was

dispositive of the case, the magistrate judge did not address the

motion to dismiss.

 The court adopts by reference the section in the findings 2

and recommendations which pertains to the standard for evaluating

motions for summary judgement. See Findings and Recommendations

at 3. 

2

summary judgment.1

Upon reviewing the record, there are several areas of disputed

facts which preclude summary judgment. As discussed in the 2

findings and recommendations, this case concerns a claim of

excessive force. Plaintiff, who is wheelchair bound, claims that

defendants used unnecessary force to restrain him. In plaintiff’s

verified opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

plaintiff sets forth several facts which defendants dispute.

Plaintiff avers that defendant Albonico, 

without cause or warning vigorously grasped plaintiff’s left

wrist . . . plaintiff was subsequently struck in the left eye

by Albonico[’s] right fist and pushed in face by Albonico’s

left hand. Albonico then positioned himself at the left rear

of paralytic plaintiff’s wheelchair (plaintiff’s blind side),

and . . . jabbed plaintiff in his mouth with sharp

fingernails on index and middle fingers, while simultaneously

applying a choke-hold on plaintiff’s throat and thereby

flipped plaintiff backwards in his wheelchair striking the

concrete surface.

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 57 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 Plaintiff repeats these general facts in his separate 3

statement of disputed facts, which was also submitted under penalty

of perjury. 

 For a more complete description of defendants’ version of 4

the facts, see the Findings and Recommendations at 2:2-18.

3

Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 5. Plaintiff goes

on to aver that after being “flipped” out of his wheelchair,

defendant Bates charged at him, “throwing his (Bates) entire body

weight in and onto plaintiff’s abdominal and chest area thereby

trouncing plaintiff.” Id. At that point, “plaintiff laid in a

mangled and twisted state (with right arm pinned underneath

abdomen), Weaver intervened and plunged his right knee into

plaintiff’s back while twisting plaintiff’s left arm and wrist

behind him.” Id. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Coe and Weaver

then “lifted plaintiff by his right and left arms (which were

cuffed at the wrist) . . . and dragged . . . plaintiff by his lower

extremities over 55 feet of concrete surface.” Id. at 6.3

Defendants present an alternative account of what happened.

According to defendants, plaintiff instigated the incident and that

the use of force was justified. Defendants assert that plaintiff

was ordered to move out of the way by defendant Albonico and

plaintiff refused, yelling “Fuck you.”4

The magistrate judge found that there were no disputed facts

because plaintiff’s discovery requests conceded that the

defendants’ version of the facts was correct. See Findings and

Recommendations at 5:2–6:14. The magistrate judge concluded that

because plaintiff concedes the facts as outlined by defendants,

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 57 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 5
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

“the parties do not dispute that plaintiff refused to comply with

direct orders given by defendant correctional officers and then

became belligerent and physically aggressive.” Id. at 6:16-17.

 The court cannot agree with this conclusion. The document

referred to by the magistrate judge is a “request for admissions”

filed by plaintiff. The request for admissions clearly states

that it is being propounded on defendant Alboncio. The request for

admission cannot be viewed as the plaintiff’s own admissions as to

what happened. Rather, plaintiff is simply asking defendant

Albicono to verify what he, defendant Albicono, said happened.

While plaintiff’s request for admissions may be somewhat unusual,

it is not up to the court to speculate as to why plaintiff was

asking for these specific admissions. It is also not proper for

the court to view plaintiff’s request for admissions as plaintiff’s

own admissions. In short, there is no indication that plaintiff

intended that his request for admissions be regarded as his own

admissions. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s verified opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment as well as plaintiff’s own statement

of disputed facts (both filed after plaintiff propounded his

discovery requests) do not concede the relevant facts. Instead,

these documents reveal that plaintiff disputes defendants’ version

of the facts. 

Viewing the record in light most favorable to the plaintiff

and drawing all justifiable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,

the court finds that the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff set

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 57 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 5
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

 The court notes that the magistrate judge did not reach the 5

merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss,

premised on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, may be

dispositive of the case. Given that the court declined to adopt

the magistrate judge’s findings with respect to the motion for

summary judgment, the court requests that the magistrate judge

proceed to analyze the motion to dismiss. 

5

forth sufficient facts to establish a genuine issue for trial.

Accordingly, the court finds that granting summary judgment to

defendants is inappropriate.

The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings consistent with this order.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 57 Filed 03/12/07 Page 5 of 5