Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01361/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01361-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Eric D. Perry,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-1361 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

County of Solano, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking

redress against a deputy sheriff for violation of plaintiff’s

federal civil rights. Plaintiff alleges that while he was being

escorted from a courtroom, handcuffed and shackled, deputy

sheriff Stacks slammed plaintiff against a wall and then hurled

him head-first into an elevator causing a knot on the head,

whiplash of the neck and back and a cut on the elbow.

Stacks moved for summary judgment and plaintiff opposed. 

In seeking summary judgment the moving party must establish

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 88 Filed 06/01/05 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

2

that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c). An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the opposing party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A fact is

“material” if it affects the right to recover under applicable

substantive law. Id. The moving party must submit evidence that

establishes issues upon which the movant bears the burden of

proof; if the movant does not bear the burden of proof on an

issue, the movant need only point to the absence of evidence to

support the opponent’s burden. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 324 (1986). To avoid summary judgment on an issue upon

which the opponent bears the burden of proof, the opponent must

present affirmative evidence sufficiently probative such that a

jury reasonably could decide the issue in favor of the opponent. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

588 (1986). When the conduct alleged is implausible, stronger

evidence than otherwise required must be presented to defeat

summary judgment. Id. at 587. 

In considering summary judgment, this court should view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the

nonmoving party is pro se this court should “consider as evidence

in his opposition to summary judgment all ... contentions offered

in motions and pleadings, where such contentions are based on

personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 88 Filed 06/01/05 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

3

in evidence ... attested under penalty of perjury ... as true and

correct.” Id. Summary judgment is disfavored where relevant

evidence remains to be discovered, particularly in cases

involving confined pro se plaintiffs. Id.

If a plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the time of the

alleged constitutional violation, his claims challenging

excessive force properly are brought under the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

536 n. 16 (1979). The Due Process Clause is violated when

conditions of pretrial detention amount to punishment of the

detainee. Id. at 535. “A court must decide whether the

disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it

is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental

purpose.” Id. at 538. If a restriction is not reasonably

related to a legitimate goal (i.e., if it is arbitrary and

purposeless) a court may permissibly infer that the purpose of

the governmental action was punishment. Id.

To prevail on a claim prison officials used excessive force

in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel

and unusual punishment, plaintiff must establish defendant used

force against him maliciously and sadistically for the very

purpose of causing harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

834 (1994). An inmate alleging excessive force in violation of

the Eighth Amendment is not required to allege a serious injury. 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4, (1992)) (“This case requires

us to decide whether the use of excessive physical force against

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 88 Filed 06/01/05 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

4

a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment when the

inmate does not suffer serious injury. We answer that question

in the affirmative.”)

Plaintiff declares he was not resisting or attempting escape

when Stacks injured him. Stacks declares that plaintiff resisted

him and, to prevent plaintiff from trying to rush past Stacks

through an open door, he “moved” him into the waiting elevator

and Perry “fell down.” 

The parties declarations pose material factual disputes

precluding summary judgment. See White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501,

1507 (9th Cir. 1990) (where amount of force was in dispute but

plaintiff undisputably was resisting, defendant was entitled to

summary judgment because injuries alleged were minor). The

result is the same whether plaintiff’s claim is considered under

the standard for Fourteenth Amendment Due Process or that for

Eighth Amendment excessive force.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends defendant Stacks’

September 20, 2004, motion for summary judgment be denied.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 88 Filed 06/01/05 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

5

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 88 Filed 06/01/05 Page 5 of 5