Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00228-25/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CURTIS HIGHTOWER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv-228-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C § 1983. Currently pending before the court are: (1) defendant W. Patton’s motion for leave 

to disclose an expert witness (ECF No. 145); (2) plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 

No. 146); (3) plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 148); and (4) plaintiff’s “request to entry on 

pretrial statements” (ECF No. 149). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to disclose an 

expert witness and plaintiff’s request regarding his pretrial statement are granted and the court 

defers ruling on the motion to stay pending receipt of further information from the parties. 

Further, it is recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied. 

I. Background 

This action proceeds on the verified amended complaint filed on December 14, 2009. 

ECF No. 29. Plaintiff claims that defendant used excessive force against him on March 6, 2007. 

Id. at 3-7. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant Patton escorted plaintiff out of a singleCase 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 154 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 6
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

man holding cage at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) on that date. While applying handcuffs 

to plaintiff, defendant allegedly said, “Let me show you something.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff turned his 

head slightly to see defendant drop the right hand of the cuffs. Id. Defendant then twisted 

plaintiff’s left arm with the cuff on it, pulling plaintiff’s arm out of the cage and lifting it 

upwards, which caused plaintiff’s shoulder to get pinched by the opening of the cage. Id. 

Because this position was very painful, plaintiff automatically pulled his right hand into the cage. 

Id. Defendant yelled, “Put your hand back out of the cage!” Id. Plaintiff responded, “I can’t, I 

can’t!” Id. Painfully, plaintiff was then able to put his hand back out. Id. at 4-5. Defendant 

eased on plaintiff’s arm and backed him out of the cage, fully handcuffed. Id. at 5. 

 Plaintiff further alleges that Correctional Officer Gullion escorted plaintiff a short distance 

while defendant yelled at him from behind. Id. Plaintiff says that he did not realize defendant 

was yelling at him until he turned his head slightly to check. Id. Defendant then said, “Bring him 

back!” Id. Gullion brought him back, and defendant “got an attitude” with plaintiff, “yelling one 

thing or another.” Id. Defendant and Gullion allegedly placed plaintiff’s chest and face against 

the window of the “MTA” office, with plaintiff’s feet about a foot from the wall to avoid stepping 

on some boxes. Id. Plaintiff says that he tilted his head back to look left and right, “but never 

with an attitude towards an Officer.” Id. at 5-6. Defendant told Gullion to “take him to the 

ground,” which both officers then did. Id. at 6. 

 Plaintiff felt weight and pressure on his back with his legs held up “in a ‘hog tie” type of 

position.” Id. Plaintiff started to yell, “What the fuck, what the fuck!” Id. Defendant and 

Gullion responded, “Stop resisting!” Id. Plaintiff, however, was not able to resist from the “hog 

tie” position. Id. Plaintiff started to breathe heavily with the weight on his back and felt a surge 

of adrenaline, which caused him to drool onto his face. Id. He did not spit or try to spit on either 

officer. Id. 

 Defendant punched plaintiff around his left eye with a closed fist, yelling, “Stop spitting, 

stop spitting!” Id. Defendant punched plaintiff again in the same location. Id. Plaintiff yelled, 

“I’m not spitting, what the fuck! Stop! I’m sorry.” Id. Plaintiff held still, but defendant punched 

him again, six or seven times total. Id. Defendant and Gullion had plaintiff’s legs lifted so high 

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 154 Filed 01/09/14 Page 2 of 6
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

that his chin scraped the concrete as he turned his head between each punch. Id. Defendant then 

struck plaintiff hard with his knee, twice. Id. at 7. Plaintiff “felt a big thud” on his head and a 

“big crack” around his eye. Id. Plaintiff’s eye swelled shut and blood dripped down his face and 

shirt to the ground. Id. 

 Plaintiff’s eye injury required surgery with a lengthy recovery. Id. It is permanently 

damaged. Id. 

 Defendant disputes that version, and claims that during the incident in question he “had to 

use force against [plaintiff] to defend myself.” Decl. of W. Patton ISO Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 

(hereinafter “Patton Decl.”) ¶ 2. Plaintiff resisted defendant’s and Gullion’s attempts to restrain 

him. Id. ¶ 3. According to defendants: 

To control Hightower and prevent further resistance, Officer 

Gullion and I had to take Inmate Hightower to the floor. After 

hitting the floor, Officer Gullion straddled Hightower and I 

maneuvered around in front of Hightower. Hightower then tried to 

break free from our holds by attempting to twist and turn away 

from them and wiggle away from our grasp. Hightower’s attempt 

to free himself from our hold caused me concern because I did not 

know what Hightower was thinking or where Hightower was going 

to go, and Hightower was not complying with our orders. Several 

times, I ordered Hightower to “stop resisting.” Hightower then 

attempted to roll over onto his back, and I tried to turn him down. 

At that point, Hightower turned up and spit at me. To stop further 

spitting, I punched Hightower by bringing my right hand to 

stomach level, extending it out to strike Hightower, and bringing it 

back. I ordered Hightower to stop spitting. Due to Hightower’s 

facial expressions, I believed he was going to spit again. Therefore, 

I punched him a second time. This whole incident took place 

before I could pull out my pepper spray canister or baton out of the 

holster. After the second punch, the rest of the staff piled on top of 

inmate Hightower. Hightower was still kicking but the staff was 

able to get Hightower to comply based on the fact that he had five 

people on top of him. 

Id. ¶¶ 4- 14. 

 Defendant Patton moved for summary judgment on February 16, 2012. ECF No. 98. 

Among other arguments, defendant claimed that the uncontroverted facts showed that defendant’s 

use of force was not excessive. Id. at 11-14. The court denied the motion, finding that “[t]he 

evidence on this point is entirely disputed.” ECF No. 114 at 11; ECF No. 116 (order adopting 

ECF No. 114 in full). The court noted, 

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 154 Filed 01/09/14 Page 3 of 6
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

Defendant attests that he punched plaintiff twice only because 

plaintiff was forcefully resisting efforts to restrain him and because 

plaintiff spit at him. Patton Decl. ¶¶ 3-14. Plaintiff attests that he 

did not forcefully resist defendant nor spit at him but that defendant 

nevertheless punched him six or seven times and came down on 

plaintiff’s face with his knee twice. Dckt. No. 29 at 5-8. 

Whichever version is to be credited will have to be determined at 

trial. 

ECF No. 114 at 11-12. 

 Thereafter, the parties submitted pretrial statements. The court granted defendant’s 

request to defer issuing a pretrial order until September 23, 2013 to allow the parties time to seek 

leave to amend their pretrial statements and to confer regarding pretrial matters and possible 

settlement. ECF No. 144. The instant motions followed. 

II. Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness 

Defendant seeks leave to disclose an expert witness on the use of force under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). ECF No. 145. Defendant states that he did not disclose an expert 

during discovery because he has new counsel and was trying to settle the case, but that plaintiff 

will not be prejudiced by the late disclosure because a trial date has not been set and will likely 

not be set in the immediate future due to plaintiff’s motion to stay. Plaintiff does not oppose the 

disclosure. ECF No. 152. As the court does not anticipate that trial will be scheduled within the 

next 90 days, the motion will be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) (providing that 

disclosure of expert witnesses must be made at least 90 days before the date set for trial). 

III. Motion to Stay 

Plaintiff informed the court that he could be transferred to another institution before 

December 31, 2013 as part of the State of California’s court-ordered efforts to reduce prison 

overpopulation. ECF No. 148. Plaintiff provided evidence that he was scheduled to be seen by 

an Institutional Classification Committee to determine whether he would be transferred between 

September 21, 2013 and October 12, 2013. Id. at 4. Plaintiff requested a stay of proceedings 

until the end of the year because, if transferred, plaintiff will not have access to his legal property 

for some time. Id. at 2. As of the date of this order, plaintiff has not informed the court whether 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 154 Filed 01/09/14 Page 4 of 6
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

prison officials elected to transfer him and, if so, when. Further, the stay sought was through the 

end of the year. Accordingly, the request now appears to be moot. 

IV. “Request to Entry on Pretrial Statements” 

Plaintiff has submitted two filings in which he requests that certain information be added 

to his pretrial statement. ECF Nos. 149, 152. Defendant opposes those requests, arguing that 

plaintiff has not obtained leave to file an amended pretrial statement and has now disclosed new 

exhibits. ECF No. 151. Defendant requests that if the court allow plaintiff to include the 

additional information in his pretrial statement, it also allow defendant to file an amended pretrial 

statement to respond to the information. 

Plaintiff’s requests are granted and the court will consider the additional filings when 

preparing the pretrial order. Defendant’s request for leave to file a responsive amended pretrial 

statement within 30 days of the date of this order is also granted. 

V. Motion for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 146. The deadline for filing 

dispositive motions in this action was February 17, 2012. ECF No. 65 at 4. Moreover, plaintiff’s 

motion merely presents his version of the altercation that is the basis of this action. As, the court 

has already explained in detail in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, these facts 

are disputed. ECF No. 114 at 11. Accordingly, the motion must be denied. 

VI. Order and Recommendation

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s motion for leave to disclose an expert witness on the use of force (ECF 

No. 145) is granted, and defendant shall disclose such expert and any expert report 

within 30 days of the date of this order; 

2. Plaintiffs request for stay (ECF No. 148) is denied as moot; 

3. Plaintiff’s requests to have additional information included in his pretrial statement 

(ECF Nos. 149, 152) are granted; and 

4. Defendant’s request for leave to file an amended pretrial statement responding to 

plaintiff’s additional information is granted. 

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 154 Filed 01/09/14 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

It is further RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s September 23, 2013 motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 146) be denied. 

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

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

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

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 8, 2014. 

 

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 154 Filed 01/09/14 Page 6 of 6