Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00272-2/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

ROBERT SPENCER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0272 FCD KJM P

vs.

J. BRIDDLE, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 21, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint,

giving him leave to amend some of the claims. Plaintiff has now filed the amended complaint.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff takes issue with this court’s characterization

of defendant Moore’s actions: plaintiff says that Moore did not trip and fall on plaintiff, causing

injury, but rather Moore fell on plaintiff when his baton swing against another inmate missed. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00272-FCD-KJM Document 11 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Amended Complaint (Am. Comp.) at 1-2. This does not change the analysis; as the court said in

the June 21 order:

“Where a prison security measure is undertaken to

resolve a disturbance . . . that indisputably poses

significant risks to the safety of inmates and prison

staff, we think the question whether the measure

taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and

suffering ultimately turns on ‘whether force was

applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore

discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the

very purpose of causing harm.’” 

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). Plaintiff has not described any action by

defendant Moore that would rise to the level of a civil rights violation. Jeffers v. Gomez, 267

F.3d 895, 912 (9th Cir. 2001) (allegation that inmate was shot when officer was attempting to

stop an attack was not 8th Amendment violation). These claims of negligent and reckless

behavior do not rise to the level of a civil rights violation.

Plaintiff also contends that defendant Moore violated his right to due process “by

not reporting or adding my injury to his daily report . . .,” but does not contend that this failure

caused him to be denied medical treatment. In fact, he alleges that he was sent to the infirmary

“minutes after the incident.” Am. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff does appear to claim that Moore’s

failure to record an incident led to defendant Briddle’s accusing plaintiff of lying about the

injury. However, harm to reputation, even inflicted by someone acting under color of state law,

“does not result in a deprivation of any ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ recognized by state or federal

law.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976).

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00272-FCD-KJM Document 11 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 5, 2007. 

2

spen0272.56

Case 2:06-cv-00272-FCD-KJM Document 11 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 3