Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01686/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01686-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNRICO RODGERS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C.C. MARTIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-1686-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO:

(1) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 47); 

AND

(2) GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 

48)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 & 5.) This matter 

proceeds against Defendants Martin and Blattel on Plaintiff‟s First Amendment 

retaliation and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. (ECF No. 7) 

On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 47.) 

Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff filed no reply.

On August 11, 2014, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 65.) Defendants filed a reply. (ECF 

No. 70.) These matters are deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 13
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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary 

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Wash. 

Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party‟s position, 

whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to 

particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, 

documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not 

establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party 

cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). 

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, 

he must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than 

for him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Defendants do not bear the burden of proof at trial and, in moving for summary 

judgment, they need only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff‟s case. In re 

Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010).

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court may not make 

credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984, 

and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,

Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 

(9th Cir. 2011).

III. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, but complains of acts that 

occurred at Corcoran State Prison. The relevant allegations in his original complaint 

(ECF No. 1) may be summarized essentially as follows:

Plaintiff filed administrative complaints against Defendants Martin and Blattel in 

October 2010.

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 13
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

On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff asked Defendant Martin about the status of a 

pending administrative complaint. Defendant Martin refused to assist Plaintiff and they 

exchanged words. Defendant Blattel approached. Plaintiff told Blattel to mind his own 

business. Blattel responded, “Martin is my business” and threatened Plaintiff that they 

“would have something for [him] tonight.” In the evening, Defendants denied Plaintiff his 

evening meal. Later, Plaintiff was “bird bathing” with his cell door covered by a blanket. 

Defendants appeared and ordered the blanket removed. Plaintiff refused due to fear of 

receiving a rules violation for exposing himself. Plaintiff grabbed the blanket. Blattel 

reached through the food port and grabbed the blanket from Plaintiff. Defendant Martin 

told Defendant Blattel to pepper spray Plaintiff. Blattel pepper sprayed Plaintiff in the 

face and chest, and sprayed the cell and its contents stating, “I told you that we [would] 

be back later, didn‟t I.”

Plaintiff complained to Martin and Blattel that he “could not breathe” and 

“begged” for a shower. Defendants laughed, denied the request, and told Plaintiff to use 

toilet water. Defendants left Plaintiff with severe pain and difficulty breathing. The 

pepper spray fumes remained in the cell for days, causing Plaintiff to suffer an ongoing 

burning sensation of his skin, nausea, and headaches. 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment 

protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and inhumane conditions of 

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations 

omitted). “[A] prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying 

humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk 

of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate 

it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).

A conditions of confinement claim has both an objective and a subjective 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 13
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

component. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “First, the deprivation alleged must be . . . 

sufficiently serious,” and must “result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of 

life‟s necessities.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) “[E]xtreme 

deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim.” Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).

Second, the prison official must have acted with “deliberate indifference” to 

inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “Mere negligence is not sufficient to 

establish liability.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Rather, a 

plaintiff must show that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive risk to 

inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. That is, “the official must both be 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 

harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id.

Delays in providing showers and medical attention for inmates suffering from 

harmful effects of pepper spray may violate the Eighth Amendment. Clement v. Gomez, 

298 F.3d 898, 905-06 (9th Cir. 2002).

2. Retaliation

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails 

five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner‟s protected conduct, and that such 

action (4) chilled the inmate‟s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 

did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 

F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The second element focuses on causation and motive. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 

F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was a 

“„substantial‟ or „motivating‟ factor behind the defendant‟s conduct.” Id. (quoting 

Sorrano‟s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Although it can 

be difficult to establish the motive or intent of the defendant, a plaintiff may rely on 

circumstantial evidence. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 4 of 13
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

a prisoner established a triable issue of fact regarding prison officials‟ retaliatory motives 

by raising issues of suspect timing, evidence, and statements); Hines v. Gomez, 108 

F.3d 265, 267-68 (9th Cir. 1997); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(“timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent”). 

In terms of the third prerequisite, filing a grievance is a protected action under the 

First Amendment. Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 1989). 

With respect to the fourth prong, “[it] would be unjust to allow a defendant to

escape liability for a First Amendment violation merely because an unusually 

determined plaintiff persists in his protected activity . . . .” Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. 

Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999). The correct inquiry is to 

determine whether an official‟s acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness 

from future First Amendment activities. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568-69 (citing Mendocino 

Envtl. Ctr., 192 F.3d at 1300).

With respect to the fifth prong, a prisoner must affirmatively show that “„the prison 

authorities‟ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional 

institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” Rizzo v. Dawson, 

778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985). 

B. Parties’ Arguments

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff‟s motion relies largely on the allegations of his complaint and argues 

that, based thereon, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. He asserts that 

Defendants pepper sprayed him because of his prior grievances and falsified a Rules 

Violation Report in relation to the November 29, 2010 incident. He contends that he 

complained of pain and difficulty breathing following the administration of pepper spray, 

but that Defendants refused to remove him from his cell in retaliation. Plaintiff also 

raises arguments in relation to claims that the Court dismissed for failure to state a 

claim.

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 5 of 13
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

In response, Defendants point out that several of Plaintiff‟s arguments concern 

claims that were dismissed at the screening stage. They also argue that Plaintiff is 

barred from contesting the findings of his disciplinary proceedings because he was 

assessed a loss of good time credits in relation to those proceedings and did not 

attempt to overturn the guilty finding in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 

response to Plaintiff‟s remaining arguments, Defendants refer to their own motion for 

summary judgment, discussed in detail below.

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants argue that Plaintiff was not subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment because he had the means to decontaminate himself in-cell. They further 

argue that they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff‟s needs because they did not 

purposefully refuse to provide decontamination or medical care. Specifically, they state 

that they did not make the decision to proceed with in-cell self-decontamination. This 

decision was made by the Incident Commander, Lieutenant Lowden, and passed down 

by Sergeant Gaines. Defendants could not have taken Plaintiff to the showers without a 

direct order from Sergeant Gaines. 

Defendants state that they knew Defendant had access to cool water and the 

means to decontaminate himself in-cell. They further knew that in-cell selfdecontamination is allowed under the Department Operations Manual where an inmate 

is extremely agitated or uses force to secure the food port. Although Plaintiff contests 

holding the food port open, he was found guilty in relation to this incident on a Rules 

Violation Report of delaying a peace officer by holding open the food port. Because this 

guilty finding has not been overturned, Plaintiff is barred from arguing in this action that 

he did not hold the food port open. 

Defendants further argue that they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff‟s 

medical needs because medical attention was provided. A nurse checked on Plaintiff 

shortly after the incident, and Defendants were aware of that at the time. The nurse 

concluded further examination and treatment was not medically necessary. Defendants 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 6 of 13
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

7

were entitled to rely on the opinions of medical professionals. Following the incident, 

Plaintiff was coherent, spoke normally, and did not appear to need emergency medical 

attention. Defendants did not believe exposure to pepper spray posed any serious risk 

to Plaintiff‟s health.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff‟s retaliation claim fails on several grounds.

Plaintiff alleges that, in response to his administrative appeals, Defendants‟ refused to 

take him to the showers, decontaminate his cell, take him to the medical clinic, and 

serve him an evening meal. However, Defendants contend that their actions were 

motivated by legitimate penological goals rather than Plaintiff‟s appeals, and Plaintiff 

cannot show otherwise. They also argue that legitimate correctional goals, specifically, 

institutional security, supported the decision to require him to decontaminate in-cell. 

They argue that denying Plaintiff a single meal would not chill a person of ordinary 

firmness. 

Lastly, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because 

they did not violate Plaintiff‟s rights and, in any event, the law on in-cell selfdecontamination was not clearly established at the time of the incident. Additionally, 

Defendants could have reasonably believed it was lawful to proceed with in-cell selfdecontamination because doing so was authorized by the Department Operations 

Manual and an order from their Sergeant. They also were entitled to rely on a nurse‟s 

assessment that emergency medical treatment was not necessary. Lastly, they could 

reasonably believe that they were not violating Plaintiff‟s First Amendment rights in 

denying him an evening meal because he was belligerent, refused his meal, and the 

denial of a single meal would not chill a person of ordinary firmness.

In response, Plaintiff disputes Defendants‟ version of the facts. He disputes 

Defendants‟ claim that he was belligerent and refused to go to the back of the cell to 

receive his evening meal. He disputes becoming belligerent prior to being pepper 

sprayed, and that he held open his food port. He provides affidavits from other inmates 

and himself to support his version of the events.

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 7 of 13
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

8

In reply, Defendants argue that, because Plaintiff‟s excessive force and 

retaliation claims in relation to being pepper sprayed have been dismissed, and 

therefore there is no claim regarding whether the use of pepper spray was proper, it is 

irrelevant whether Plaintiff held open the food port with his hand, or whether he held 

open the food port in a struggle over a blanket. They further argue that Plaintiff has 

submitted no evidence to suggest he could not decontaminate in-cell or that Defendants 

made the decision to limit Plaintiff to in-cell decontamination. They also argue that 

Plaintiff‟s claims that he was not instructed on how to self-decontaminate and that the 

nurse‟s evaluation of him was insufficient are immaterial.

C. Disputed and Undisputed Facts

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Court finds the following facts to be 

undisputed, unless otherwise stated.

At all times relevant to the complaint, Plaintiff was housed in the Security 

Housing Unit (“SHU”) at California State Prison Corcoran.

In October 2010, Plaintiff filed administrative appeals concerning the conduct of 

Defendants Martin and Blattel.

On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in a verbal dispute. 

The nature of that dispute is contested. According to Defendants, Plaintiff became 

belligerent and yelled to Defendant Martin, “Fuck you, bitch!” and “I‟ve got a staff 

complaint on you.” According to Plaintiff, Plaintiff called Defendant Martin over to ask 

about the status of his 602 administrative appeals. Also according to Plaintiff, Defendant 

Martin refused to assist and Defendant Blattel threatened to do something to Plaintiff 

later that night. 

Later in the evening, Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff his evening meal. 

The reason for the refusal is disputed. Plaintiff claims that Defendants walked by his cell 

without feeding him out of retaliation. Defendants contend that they did not provide the 

meal because Plaintiff was belligerent, refused to go to the back of his cell, and refused 

his meal.

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 8 of 13
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

9

Also on November 29, 2010, an altercation occurred at Plaintiff‟s cell door. The 

nature of the altercation is contested. Defendants claim that Plaintiff called them over to 

return a library book, then became belligerent and held open his food port in an attempt 

to “gas” the Defendants. Plaintiff claims that he partially covered his cell door with a 

blanket in order to take a “bird bath” in his sink. Plaintiff was naked and feared he would 

receive a rules violation report for exposing himself to Defendant Martin, as Defendant 

Blattel had earlier threatened. According to Plaintiff, a struggle ensued between himself 

and Blattel over the blanket and Blattel tried to pull the blanket through the food port.

During the incident, Defendants deployed pepper spray against Plaintiff.

Afterward, Plaintiff was not removed from his cell or taken to the showers. Plaintiff had 

access to a sink in his cell. The parties dispute whether Plaintiff was instructed on selfdecontamination. Plaintiff later was seen by a nurse.

After being pepper sprayed, Plaintiff took another bird bath and cleaned up his 

cell. He washed his bed sheet with soap and water. Eventually, Plaintiff went to sleep. 

Plaintiff showered either the next day or the following day.

Plaintiff eventually was found guilty of a Rules Violation Report and assessed a 

loss of good-time credits for delaying a peace officer by holding open the food port, 

resulting in the use of force. Based on this Rules Violation Report, Plaintiff is precluded 

from arguing here that he did not hold open the food port. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 

U.S. 641, 646 (1987). Thus, despite Plaintiff‟s assertions to the contrary, the Court must 

find it undisputed that Plaintiff held open the food port during the pepper spray incident.

D. Analysis

1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to 

whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need for further decontamination 

and medical care. The undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff was exposed to a two 

second burst of pepper spray to his face, chest and surrounding cell area. Thereafter, 

Plaintiff had access to a sink within his cell. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 9 of 13
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

10

access to soap and water in his cell. Plaintiff washed his face, cleaned up his cell, 

washed his sheet with soap and water, and went to bed. Plaintiff offers no evidence to 

suggest his cell was uninhabitable. Nor does he offer evidence to suggest that 

Defendants were aware that in-cell self-decontamination was ineffective but

purposefully refused to provide further care. Plaintiff‟s claims of pain and difficulty 

breathing immediately following the administration of pepper spray are insufficient to 

raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference.1

Other courts have rejected deliberate indifference claims under similar circumstances. 

Sekerke v. Kemp, 11-cv-2688 BTM (JMA), 2013 WL 950706, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 

2013) (no deliberate indifference where plaintiff was able to wash his eyes in a small 

fountain and no evidence was presented to demonstrate Defendants knew that this 

decontamination was ineffective); Maddox v. Ladd, 1:07-cv-01127 OWW GSA PC, 2011 

WL 2946174, at *5-7 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2011) (no deliberate indifference where plaintiff 

waited three hours to take a shower but was able to self-decontaminate using a sink in 

the holding cell). 

Plaintiff also has failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Defendants‟ 

alleged failure to summon medical assistance. It is undisputed that a nurse checked on 

Plaintiff‟s medical status shortly after the incident. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff 

was seen by a nurse. Although Plaintiff contends that the nurse‟s examination was 

insufficient, he offers no evidence to suggest that Defendants were aware of any 

deficiencies in the medical care Plaintiff received. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that Defendants 

were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s health or safety by denying 

him medical assistance and the means to decontaminate following the administration of 

pepper spray. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff‟s motion for summary 

judgment on this claim be denied, and that Defendant‟s cross-motion for summary 

 

1 Because this conclusion is dispositive of the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the Court does not address 

Defendants’ alternative arguments.

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 10 of 13
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

11

judgment on this claim be granted.

2. Retaliation

Plaintiff alleges Defendants retaliated against him by refusing to serve him his 

evening meal, take him to the showers, decontaminate his cell, or address his medical 

needs. 

a. Denial of Evening Meal

There is a genuine dispute of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding the 

denial of Plaintiff‟s evening meal. According to Defendants, the meal was denied 

because Plaintiff was belligerent, refused the meal, and refused to go to the back of his 

cell. Plaintiff denies these allegations. According to Plaintiff, the meal was denied in 

retaliation for his administrative complaints. The facts alleged by Plaintiff are sufficient to 

raise an inference of retaliatory intent. 

Despite this dispute of fact, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to 

summary judgment on this claim. Plaintiff has not shown, or even alleged, that his own 

First Amendment rights actually were chilled by this conduct. Further, the Court finds 

the denial of Plaintiff‟s evening meal on a single occasion too de minimis to chill a 

person of ordinary firmness. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012)

(finding that “a plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling effect may still state a claim if he 

alleges he suffered some other harm that is more than minimal”); Rhodes, 408 F.3d at

567 n.11 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that harm that is “more than minimal” is sufficient to 

show chilling effect); Davis v. Powell, 901 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1213 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (“If 

the plaintiff‟s exercise of his constitutional rights was not chilled . . ., he must allege that 

the defendant‟s actions caused him to suffer more than minimal harm.”).

Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Defendants‟ motion for summary 

judgment on this ground be granted.

b. Denial of Showers and Failure to Decontaminate Cell

Defendants have presented evidence that Plaintiff‟s in-cell decontamination 

advanced legitimate goals of the correctional institution. Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 532.

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 11 of 13
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

12

Specifically, Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff was required to decontaminate 

in-cell because he held open the food port, and in-cell decontamination is permitted 

under such circumstances by the Department Operations Manual. Despite Plaintiff‟s 

statements to the contrary, the Court must accept as undisputed Defendants‟ assertion

that Plaintiff held open the food port. Plaintiff was found guilty of doing so, assessed a 

loss of good time credits in relation thereto, and has not sought to overturn the loss of 

credits. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646.

Based on the adverse disciplinary findings against him, Plaintiff is unable to 

present evidence that his in-cell decontamination did not advance legitimate correctional 

goals, and his retaliation claim on these grounds therefore fails. The Court will 

recommend that Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment on these bases be granted.

c. Medical Needs

Plaintiff has not presented evidence that Defendants took adverse action against 

him in relation to any other medical needs. As stated above, a nurse was sent to check 

on Plaintiff‟s medical status following the incident, and there is no evidence to indicate 

Defendants were aware of any deficiencies in the nurse‟s examination. 

Accordingly, Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment on this basis should be 

granted.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that no 

reasonable juror could find other than for him. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff‟s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 47) be 

DENIED. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact 

regarding his deliberate indifference and retaliation claims. Based on the undisputed 

facts, Defendants have proved an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff‟s case and 

are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is FURTHER 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 12 of 13
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

13

RECOMMENDED that Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 48) be 

GRANTED.

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)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) 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.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 

and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 77 Filed 04/08/15 Page 13 of 13