Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00885/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00885-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

DERRICK WHEATEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. KNOLL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00885-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Docs. 35, 62)

Plaintiff Derrick Wheaten is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff’s operative claims are for deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 15 at 1.) 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 August 5, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff 

filed an opposition on August 19, 2019, to which Defendants filed a reply. (Docs. 38-41.) On 

September 3, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion to open limited 

discovery and postpone consideration of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 43.) 

Pursuant to the magistrate judge’s order, Plaintiff filed an amended opposition on December 9, 

2019, and Defendants filed an amended reply. (Docs. 58-60.)

Case 1:18-cv-00885-AWI-JLT Document 65 Filed 02/20/20 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

On January 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 62.) The magistrate judge found, “[t]he facts, 

viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, show that Defendants’ actions were not the 

actionable cause of the harm of which Plaintiff complains,” i.e., falling from his upper bunk and 

his resulting injuries. (Id. at 7.) The judge pointed to Plaintiff’s sworn declaration, where Plaintiff

states that (1) he fell from his upper bunk after his leg got caught in a blanket, and (2) prior to his 

fall, a medication tech, not the defendants, rescinded Plaintiff’s accommodation “chrono” for a 

lower bunk. (Id. at 6.) For these reasons, the magistrate judge found that Defendants’ actions were 

neither the cause-in-fact nor the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed objections on January 27, 2020. (Doc. 63.) In his objections, Plaintiff argues 

that “there is a genuine dispute of material facts concerning the requisite causal connection 

between defendants’ actions and the Eighth Amendment violation.” (Id. at 1.) Specifically, 

Plaintiff states that there is a dispute of fact “concerning whether Defendants’ conspired with [the 

medication tech] ... to interfere with his lower bunk accommodation.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff points 

to the facts that he had no knowledge that his chrono had been rescinded, and that the medication 

tech had no authority to withdraw the chrono, as evidence of such a conspiracy. (See id. at 2-3.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

The Court does not find that there is a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether the 

defendants conspired with the medication tech to rescind Plaintiff’s lower-bunk chrono. Even if

the medication tech overstepped her authority by rescinding the chrono, and even if Plaintiff was 

not informed that the chrono had been rescinded, these facts alone are insufficient to create a 

genuine dispute that the medication tech and Defendants “conspired” to rescind the chrono. The 

logical leap is too great. Although the Court must draw “all inferences supported by the evidence 

in favor of” Plaintiff, Walls v. Cent. Contra Costa Cty. Transit Auth., 653 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 

2011), the Court need not draw inferences unsupported by a “factual predicate” or “ordinary rules 

of logic.” Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985).

Case 1:18-cv-00885-AWI-JLT Document 65 Filed 02/20/20 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

The uncontested facts are that (1) the medication tech rescinded Plaintiff’s chrono on 

August 24, 2016, and (2) Plaintiff fell from his bunk when his leg got caught in a blanket on 

August 27, 2016. (See Doc. 58, Wheaten Decl., at 22.) Based on these facts, the Court agrees with 

the magistrate judge that Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with a lower bunk was not the 

proximate cause of his fall on August 27, 2016. Thus, Plaintiff does not meet the causation 

requirement of his Bivens claim.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 7, 2020 (Doc. 62) are

ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 35) is GRANTED;

3. This action is DISMISSED; and,

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00885-AWI-JLT Document 65 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3