Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-9/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

TODD ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00423-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 67)

Plaintiff Todd Ashker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this case 

proceed on certain claims against certain defendants, and that all other claims be dismissed. 

(Doc. No. 62.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id.

at 22.) On January 13, 2022, the then-assigned District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston1issued an 

1

 By the order of Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller dated February 3, 2022, having considered the 

equitable division and efficient and economical determination of court business, this case was 

reassigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings. (Doc. No. 72.)

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 74 Filed 05/04/22 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

27

28

2

order adopting those findings and recommendations, noting that plaintiff had not filed any 

objections and that the time “period for filing objections has expired.” (Doc. No. 67 at 2.)

On January 18, 2022, the court received plaintiff’s objections in the mail, and those 

objections were filed on the docket in this action that same day. (Doc. No. 67.) Therein, plaintiff 

states that he received the service copy of the findings and recommendations on December 21, 

2021, and he includes a proof of service indicating that he mailed his objections on January 9, 

2022. (Id. at 1, 7.) Consequently, the undersigned has now reviewed and considered plaintiff’s 

objections, and for the reasons explained below, concludes that plaintiff’s objections do not 

provide a basis for reconsidering the court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations 

and dismissing certain defendants and certain claims. 

Plaintiff raises two primary objections. First, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation that his claim for use of excessive force be dismissed to the extent that claim is 

premised upon force used during the extraction of plaintiff from his cell. (See Doc. 62 at 8.) In 

his objections, plaintiff notes that he specifically alleged that defendants fired gas canisters into 

his cell and sprayed a can of pepper spray directly at plaintiff’s head area, all while plaintiff was 

lying passively on his bed. (Doc. No. 67 at 2.) Then, according to plaintiff, guards entered his 

cell in full riot gear, landed on top of plaintiff with a large plastic shield, and placed plaintiff in 

handcuffs and leg shackles before using a wheelchair to move plaintiff to another location. (Id.) 

Plaintiff argues this use of force was “unnecessary” under the circumstances because plaintiff 

previously told guards that, while he was not going to “willingly” comply with orders to move to 

another cellblock, he also was not going to physically resist them. (Doc. 67 at 2; see also Doc. 57 

at 11.) The cases cited by plaintiff are distinguishable and do not call into question the reasoning 

of the findings and recommendations. Importantly, relevant caselaw indicates that the use of tear 

gas after adequate warnings were given to a prisoner who refuses to move locations may be “a 

legitimate means for preventing small disturbances from becoming dangerous to other inmates or 

the prison personnel.” Spain v Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 195 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Gaddy v. 

Solis, No. 11-cv-5568-PJH-PR, 2013 WL 5202590, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2013) (deployment 

/////

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 74 Filed 05/04/22 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

27

28

3

of two pepper spray grenades during a cell extraction was not an Eighth Amendment violation 

where prisoner was not cooperating with orders to leave his cell). 

Second, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that his claim for 

violation of a separate class action settlement in Ashker v. Newsom, No. 4:09-cv-5796 (N.D. Cal.), 

be dismissed. (Doc. 67 at 3–5.) As noted by the magistrate judge, however, plaintiff’s claim for 

breach of the settlement agreement in that action was dismissed previously by the district court in 

the Northern District of California in the context of yet another pro se individual action brought 

by plaintiff. (Doc. 62 at 3, 18.) That dismissal was without prejudice to plaintiff bringing such 

claims in the class action through counsel. (Id.) Thus, here too, plaintiff’s objections do not 

meaningfully call into question the magistrate judge’s reasoning. 

In sum, plaintiff’s objections, which have now been fully considered by the court, do not 

provide any basis upon which to vacate the court’s order adopting the findings and 

recommendations and dismissing certain defendants and claims (Doc. No. 62), or to that the 

analysis therein was not proper and supported by the record.

Accordingly, this case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with the court’s order of January 12, 2022. (Doc. No. 62).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 74 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 3