Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822-7/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

27

28

1

 The court reviews de novo the Objections to the R & R. The court also incorporates the R

& R as if fully set forth herein.

2

 The court notes that Plaintiff’s declaration closely follows the allegations of the First

Amended Complaint. (Ct. Dkt. No. 5).

- 1 - 07cv1822

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED DARNELL DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1822 JM(POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO AMEND

vs.

O. ALVARADO; M. HARRIS; A.

ROBERTS; and W. MITCHELL,

Defendants.

On April 26, 2010, Magistrate Judge Louisa A. Porter entered a Report and Recommendation

That Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Be Granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be Denied (“R & R”). Plaintiff has filed Objections to the R & R and Defendants a response

to the Objections.1

 Each Objection is addressed in turn.

Brief Background

The court adopts the statement of facts set forth in the R & R; and only supplements that

statement with the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, consisting primarily of his own declaration.2 On

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 58 Filed 07/27/10 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

27

28

- 2 - 07cv1822

October 7, 2005 Plaintiff Daniels informed Defendant Alvarado of his belief that he needed a cell

change because of the “likelihood of serious violence between gang member cellmate Smith” and

himself. (Daniels Decl. ¶1). In the morning, Officer Harris indicated that Plaintiff could change cells.

(Id. ¶2). Plaintiff started to move his personal belongings from his cell to a table in the day room. (Id.

¶3). After Plaintiff refused to return to his cell for an inmate count, Officer Roberts, a named

defendant not yet served with the summons or complaint, placed him in handcuffs and he and Officers

Harris and Alvarado escorted him to his cell. On the way to the cell, Officer Roberts whispered in

Plaintiff’s ear that if Plaintiff wanted to go to Administrative Segregation, he would “have to “EARN”

it!” (Id. ¶8). 

The key events in this case occurred at the entrance to Plaintiff’s cell. When Plaintiff was

ordered to enter the cell, Officer Alvarado observed Plaintiff “take two steps forward toward the cell

and then he suddenly shot backwards out of the cell, colliding into Correctional Officer Roberts,

almost pushing him over the second-tier railing.” (Alvarado Decl. ¶10). Officer Roberts, an

individual of five feet two inches in height, ordered Plaintiff to get on the ground. When Plaintiff,

about six foot two inches tall, weighing 240 lbs, refused to get on the ground, Officer Roberts pulled

Plaintiff to the ground. Officer Alvarado observed Plaintiff kicking his legs when she sat on

Plaintiff’s legs to prevent him from kicking and injuring Officer Roberts or herself. She declares that

she did not “kick, punch or in any way use force against Daniels other than to sit on his legs.”

(Alvarado Decl. ¶12). 

Plaintiff’s declaration disputes that he pushed back against Officer Roberts when ordered to

enter the cell. Plaintiff acknowledges that he refused to enter the cell and that Officer Roberts threw

Plaintiff violently “down to the hard concrete floor onto [his] left shoulder, and then placed his knee

on Plaintiff’s neck.” (Daniels. Decl. ¶8). Plaintiff disputes that he was kicking and, with respect to

Officer Alvarado, declares that she did not sit on his legs but was standing on them.” (Daniels Decl.

¶9). 

Objection to the Defendants’ Provision of Notice of the Summary Judgment Standards

In reliance upon Arreola v. Mangaong, 65 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1995), Plaintiff argues that only

the court can provide notice of the summary judgment standard. In Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 58 Filed 07/27/10 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

27

28

- 3 - 07cv1822

(9th Cir. 1998), the court overruled Arreola, holding that a summary judgment movant may provide

the requisite notice. Accordingly, the court denies this objection.

Objection to the Grant of Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants

Plaintiff’s primary Objection to the R & R is that the evidence accompanying his Objections

establish that Defendants applied excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment constitutional

rights. While Defendants object to the court’s consideration of the evidence not originally

accompanied by Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the court, in its discretion,

considers such evidence and concludes that it fails to create a genuine material issue of law or fact.

The Eighth Amendment

The R & R sets forth the legal standards to prevail on an excessive force Eighth Amendment

claim. (R & R at pp.8:9-10:12). As further discussed in the R & R, the core Eighth Amendment

judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986), that is, “whether force was

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause

harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). The R & R also discusses in detail the factually

similar case of White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501 (9th Cir. 1990), where the Ninth Circuit concluded that

a prisoner’s refusal to enter his cell created the need for force from the prison official, even if the

prisoner had a reasonable fear that his cellmate would physically assault him.

In light of the factual record, the court concludes that the force applied by Defendants

Alvarado and Harris constitutes a de minimus amount of force and is therefore not actionable. See

e.g. Moore v. Machado, 2009 WL 4051082 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (Throwing prisoner against the wall and

then twisting and bending his arm is de minimus). Whether Defendant Alvarado sat on Plaintiff’s legs

or stood on them, the evidence establishes that Defendant Alvarado acted reasonably and in good faith

to apply reasonable force to control Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown that he was seriously injured

when Defendant Alvarado took efforts to maintain and restore order by assisting Officer Roberts in

gaining control over Plaintiff or that Defendant Alvarado acted maliciously or sadistically in holding

down Plaintiff’s legs.

With respect to Defendant Harris, this Defendant declares that he did not touch Plaintiff at any

time during the incident. Officer Harris declares that he was standing next to Officer Roberts when

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 58 Filed 07/27/10 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

27

28

- 4 - 07cv1822

he observed Plaintiff refuse to enter his cell and then push backwards into Officer Roberts. (Harris

Decl. ¶9). He observed Officers Roberts and Alvarado gain control over Plaintiff and declares that

he did not touch Plaintiff. Id. Officer Alvarado also declares that Officer Harris did not touch

Plaintiff. (Alvarado Decl. ¶12). 

Plaintiff disputes Officer Harris’ evidence and declares that after he was thrown to the ground

by Officer Roberts, Defendant Harris “jump down on Plaintiff” and then put his body weight “into

[his] back with a rolling motion on Plaintiff’s handcuffed” hands. (Daniels Decl. ¶8). Accepting

Plaintiff’s version of the evidence, the act of Officer Harris rolling over Plaintiff’s back does not, in

the absence of additional evidence not present before the court, create a genuine issue of material fact.

In the absence of some permanent or serious injury caused by Officer Harris rolling over Plaintiff’s

back, the court concludes that this de minimus force is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that this defendant used force against Plaintiff in a

malicious and sadistic manner.

Qualified Immunity

As more fully discussed in the R & R, “regardless of whether the constitutional violation

occurred, the [official] should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not ‘clearly established’

or the [official] could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful.” Romero v.

Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991). As noted by the Supreme Court, corrections officers

must balance the need to “maintain order and discipline” against the risk of injury to inmates, and

“must make their decisions in ‘haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second

chance.’ ” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320). In light of this, “ ‘[p]rison

administrators ... should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies

and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline to maintain

institutional security.’ ” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321-22.

The situation confronted by Defendants when Plaintiff refused to enter his cell created a need

for the corrections officers to apply reasonable force to control Plaintiff and gain his compliance with

proper directives. White, 901 F.2d 1501 (prisoner’s refusal to enter cell reasonably gives rise to the

official’s application of reasonable force). The Officers’ conduct in applying the force applied under

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 58 Filed 07/27/10 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

27

28

- 5 - 07cv1822

the circumstances of seeking to gain control over Plaintiff once he refused to enter his cell are well

within the “wide-ranging deference” accorded prison officials in applying reasonable force “to

preserve internal order and discipline.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 322. The minimal amount of force

applied by Officer Alvarado (standing on Plaintiff’s legs, according to Plaintiff’s declaration) and

Officer Harris (assuming Plaintiff’s version of events) does not support a finding of excessive force.

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Objection to the District Court’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff objects to the recommended denial of his motion for summary judgment. As Plaintiff

did not submit any evidence in support of his motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge

properly denied summary judgment in his favor. Moreover, even considering Plaintiff’s declaration

as evidence in support of his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s motion is denied for the

reasons noted above. 

In sum, the court denies Plaintiff’s Objections, grants Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, and denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement. The court also denies Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to amend the complaint to state a claim against Officer Roberts as untimely. Plaintiff

fails to make a showing of good cause why he waited almost three years before moving to compel the

issuance of a subpoena to Officer Roberts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 27, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 58 Filed 07/27/10 Page 5 of 5