Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL STEVEN KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. DEATHRIAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00111-LJO-SAB-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS‟ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

(ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE

DAYS

Plaintiff Michael Steven King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action 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. Currently before the 

Court is Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment, filed on November 9, 2015. 

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action is proceeding on the complaint filed January 27, 2014. Plaintiff, an inmate in 

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), brings this 

action against Defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Pleasant Valley State 

Prison, where the events at issue occurred. On August 26, 2014, an order was entered, finding 

that the complaint stated a claim for relief against Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones 

for excessive force, and against Defendant Angulo for denial of medical care, in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intention to dismiss 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

the remaining Defendants. (ECF No. 10.) On October 9, 2014, an order was entered, dismissing 

the remaining claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 11.) The complaint was served, and on 

November 9, 2015, Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, Briones, and Angulo filed the instant 

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff has opposed the motion. (ECF No. 42.) 

Defendants have filed a reply. (ECF No. 43.) Along with their motion, Defendants served 

Plaintiff with the notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 

banc). 

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) (quotation marks 

omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 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) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider 

other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

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

credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 

F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all 

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine 

issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. 

City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

In arriving at its conclusion, the Court carefully reviewed and considered all arguments, 

points and authorities, declarations, exhibits, statements of undisputed facts and responses 

thereto, if any, objections, and other papers filed by the parties. Omission of reference to an 

argument, document, paper, or objection is not to be construed to the effect that this Court did 

not consider the argument, document, paper, or objection. This Court thoroughly reviewed and 

considered the evidence it deemed admissible, material, and appropriate. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2013, during the evening meal release, C/O Martinez 

ordered Plaintiff to roll his pant leg down as he approached the door. Plaintiff complied and 

continued to exit the building along with the other inmates. C/O Martinez then directed the 

control tower officer to close the rotunda gate and began trying to get Plaintiff‟s attention. Once 

Plaintiff realized C/O Martinez was calling him, he walked back toward C/O Martinez. Plaintiff 

was surrounded by C/O Martinez, C/O Briones, and Sgt. Deathriage. Martinez ordered Plaintiff 

to face the wall and began to conduct a clothed body search. Martinez ordered Plaintiff to sit 

down, remain facing the wall and remove his shoes. Plaintiff complied and placed one of his 

shoes behind him near Sgt. Deathriage.

Deathriage then stated “don‟t be tossing your f***ing shoe. It almost hit me. I‟ll slam 

your face into that wall and smash your skull.” Plaintiff replied, “no you won‟t without getting a 

602.” Before Plaintiff could finish his statement, Deathriage “wrestled Plaintiff to the floor from 

a sitting position to a prone position” and struck Plaintiff in the head with his knee. Briones and 

Martinez joined Deathriage and began striking Plaintiff in the head with their knees. At one 

point, Plaintiff heard one of the officers state, “I‟m hit in the nuts. Get him and hit your alarm.” 

Other C/Os responded and escorted Plaintiff to the program office where he was placed in a 

holding cage. 

LVN Angulo conducted a medical examination of Plaintiff. Plaintiff complained about 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

excruciating pain in his jaw and bleeding from a laceration on his arm. Plaintiff alleges that 

Angulo ignored him as well as refused to document Plaintiff‟s complaints on the CDCR 7219 

form or provide Plaintiff with any medical treatment.” Plaintiff was then placed in 

Administrative Segregation.

B. Excessive Force

The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 

(1992)(citations omitted). For claims arising out of the use of excessive physical force, the issue 

is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010 (per 

curiam) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7) (internal quotation marks omitted); Furnace v. Sullivan, 

705 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2013). The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim 

is contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency, Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 

(quotation marks and citations omitted), and although de minimis uses of force do not violate the 

Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates contemporary 

standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Wilkins, 559 

U.S. at 37-8 (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10) (quotation marks omitted); Oliver v. Keller, 289 

F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendants support their motion with the following undisputed facts.1

1. On March 21, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Steven King was housed at Pleasant Valley 

State Prison in Building 1, Facility B. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report at 2.) That 

evening, Officers Martinez and Briones were helping to release inmates in Building 1 

from their cells so they could go to the cafeteria. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report at 2, 

8, 10; Ex. B, Decl. of I. Martinez ¶¶ 1, 2, Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶¶ 1, 2.)

2. As the inmates were leaving the building, Officer Martinez ordered King to roll down 

 

1

Plaintiff neither filed his own separate statement of disputed facts nor admitted or denied the facts set forth by 

Defendants as undisputed. Local Rule 56-260(b). Therefore, Defendants‟ statement of undisputed facts is accepted 

except where brought into dispute by Plaintiff‟s verified complaint and opposition. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 

923 (9th Cir. 2004); Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-1400 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

his pant legs, which were rolled up above his ankles. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report 

at 2, 8, 10, 12; Ex. B, Decl. of I. Martinez ¶ 2; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶ 2.) King 

walked out of the building. (Id.) Martinez then ordered Plaintiff to come back and 

face the correctional counselor‟s office so he could conduct a pat search of King. 

(Id.) 

3. As Officer Martinez conducted the pat search, King became increasingly 

argumentative and agitated. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report, at 2, 10, 12; Ex. D, Decl. 

of S. Deathriage ¶ 3.) 

4. When Officer Martinez finished the pat search, he ordered King to sit down facing 

the correctional counselor‟s office and to remove his shoes. (Ex. A, Crime Incident 

Report at 2, 8, 10, 12; Ex. B, Decl. of I. Martinez ¶ 3; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones, ¶ 2.) 

King removed his shoe, and it ended up near Sergeant Deathriage, who was standing 

nearby observing the search. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report at 2, 8, 10, 12; Ex. B, 

Decl. of I. Martinez ¶ 3; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones, ¶ 3; Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage 

¶ 3.) 

5. Sergeant Deathriage ordered King not to throw his shoes. (Ex. A, Crime Incident 

Report at 2, 8, 10, 12; Ex. B, Decl. of I. Martinez ¶ 4; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶ 4; 

Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage P 3.) 

6. Sergeant Deathriage ordered King to submit to handcuffs. (Ex. A, Crime Incident 

Report at 2; Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage ¶ 4.) King did not place his hands behind 

his back as is customary when submitting to handcuffs. (Ex. D, Decl. of S. 

Deathriage ¶ 4.) Sergeant Deathriage then placed his hand on King‟s right hand and 

attempted to place it behind his back so that he could handcuff him. (Ex. A, Crime 

Incident Report at 2, 8, 10, 12; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶ 4; Ex. D, Decl. of S. 

Deathriage ¶ 4.) As Sergeant Deathriage was attempting to move King‟s hand, King 

turned, jerked out of his grasp, and struck him in the groin. (Ex. A, Crime Incident 

Report at 2, 8, 12; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶ 4; Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage ¶ 4.) 

7. Upon seeing King strike Sergeant Deathriage in the groin, Officer Briones activated 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

his personal alarm, which signifies an emergency and summoned staff for assistance. 

(Ex. A, Crime Incident Report at 2, 8; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶ 5.) 

8. Sergeant Deathriage then ordered King to get down, and he refused. (Ex. , Crime 

Incident Report at 2; Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage ¶ 5.) Sergeant Deathriage then 

placed his right hand on King‟s right shoulder and his left hand on the middle of 

King‟s back. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report at 2; Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage at ¶ 

5.) Using his upper body, Sergeant Deathriage forced King into a prone position on 

the floor. (Id.)

9. In order to regain order and to assist in safely handcuffing King, Officer Martinez 

grabbed King‟s right leg with his hands to hold it to the ground, and Officer Briones 

used both his hands to control King‟s legs by forcing them to the ground so that he 

could be placed in handcuffs. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report at 2, 8, 10; Ex. B, Decl. 

of I. Martinez ¶ 6; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶6; Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage ¶ 5.) 

10. When King was restrained, Officer Martinez placed him in handcuffs. (Ex. A, Crime 

Incident Report at 2, 8, 10; Ex. B, Decl. of I. Martinez ¶ 6; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones 

¶ 6; Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage ¶ 5.)

11. King was facing the correctional counselor‟s office, and then was placed in a prone 

position, and could not see what was going on behind him. (Ex. B, Decl. of I. 

Martinez ¶ 2; Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶ 2; Ex. E, Dep. of King at 16:5-17:6, 18:3-

7.) King could not see which officers were involved in restraining him, nor what 

actions specific officers were taking. (Ex. E, Dep. of King at 16:5-17:6; 18:3-7; 

23:22-24.) 

12. After King was handcuffed, Officer Gonzales, who had responded to Officer 

Briones‟s personal alarm, escorted him to the program office and secured him in a 

holding cell. (Ex. A at 9.)

13. Officer Martinez used a minimal amount of force to safely place King into handcuffs. 

(Ex B, Decl. of I. Martinez ¶ 8.)

14. Officer Briones used a minimal amount of force to de-escalate King‟s resistive 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

behavior and to safely place King into handcuffs. (Ex. C, Decl. of R. Briones ¶ 8.) 

15. Sergeant Deathriage used a minimal amount of force to de-escalate King‟s resistive 

behavior, prevent King from injuring him, and to safely place King into handcuffs. 

(Ex. D, Decl. of S. Deathriage ¶ 8.)

16. Defendant Angulo completed a medical assessment after the incident and noted that 

Plaintiff had no injuries. (Ex. A, Crime Incident Report, Medical Report of Injury or 

Unusual Occurrence at 13.)

17. Plaintiff admits that any injuries he sustained as a result of the incident were minor. 

Plaintiff‟s alleged injuries include several scratches on his arm that would have 

needed only a Band-Aid, and jaw pain that had gone away several hours later. (Ex. E, 

Dep. of King at 28:8-19; 31:24-32:12.) Plaintiff already had a prescription for 600 

milligrams of ibuprofen, which would have been the only medical treatment 

appropriate for any jaw pain he experienced. (Ex. E, Depo. of King at 29:14-30:1; 

Ex. F, Decl. of B. Barnett ¶ 14.) 

Defendants argue that the undisputed facts establish that, although they subjected 

Plaintiff to the use of force, they did so because Plaintiff became disruptive and failed to comply 

with orders. Defendants argue that because Plaintiff became disruptive and failed to comply 

with orders, Defendants reasonably perceived Plaintiff as a threat. Defendants contend that 

Plaintiff first became agitated when Defendant Martinez counseled him about not complying 

with the order to roll down his pant legs. Plaintiff then became more agitated when Defendant 

Deathriage counseled him about throwing his shoe, and failed to submit to handcuffs when 

Defendant Deathriage asked him to do so. When Defendant Deathriage attempted to place 

Plaintiff in handcuffs, Plaintiff struck him in the groin and then disregarded Defendant 

Deathriage‟s order to get down. Defendants argue that in light of these facts, Defendants 

Briones, Martinez, and Deathriage reasonably perceived Plaintiff as a threat.

Defendants also argue that the undisputed facts establish that they used only the minimal 

amount of force necessary to maintain control of Plaintiff. The undisputed evidence establishes 

that when Defendant Deathriage ordered Plaintiff to submit to handcuffs, he did not comply with 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

the order. (SUF No. 6.) As Defendant Deathriage attempted to move Plaintiff‟s hands in order 

to place him into handcuffs, Plaintiff turned, jerked out of his grasp, and struck Defendant 

Deathriage in the groin. (SUF No. 6.) Defendant Deathriage ordered Plaintiff to get down, and 

Plaintiff refused. (SUF No. 8.) Defendant Deathriage then placed his right hand on Plaintiff‟s 

right shoulder and his left hand on the middle of Plaintiff‟s back. (SUF No. 8.) Using his upper 

body, Defendant Deathriage forced Plaintiff into a prone position on the floor. (SUF No. 8.) 

Officers Martinez and Briones forced Plaintiff‟s legs to the ground, and Officer Martinez placed 

Plaintiff in handcuffs. (SUF Nos. 9, 10.) This was done to regain order and to safely Place 

Plaintiff in handcuffs. (SUF Nos. 13-15.) A medical assessment was conducted, and no injuries 

were noted. (SUF No. 16.) Plaintiff admits that his only injuries were several small scratches on 

his arm and jaw pain that subsided that same day, indicating that the amount of force used was 

minimal. (SUF No. 17.) Defendants needed to take control of and stop Plaintiff‟s disruptive 

behavior. (SUF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9.) To gain compliance, Plaintiff was handcuffed and escorted 

out of the building. (SUF Nos. 10, 15.) 

The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden on summary judgment. 

Defendants have come forward with evidence that establishes that force was used on Plaintiff 

after he refused to comply with Defendant Deathriage‟s order to submit to handcuffs, after he 

struck Defendant Deathriage in the groin, and refused Defendant Deathriage‟s order to get down. 

In an effort to gain compliance with lawful orders and to diffuse a potential threat, Defendants 

placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and escorted him from the housing unit with minimal injuries. 

Defendants have met their burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and 

identifying the evidence which they believe demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of 

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact 

actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 

(1986). Plaintiff‟s opposition consists of two pages of oral argument, supported by the 

declarations of two inmates and a copy of the investigative employee‟s report regarding the event 

at issue. Plaintiff also submits a copy the CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury, dated 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

March 21, 2013. The Court also considers Plaintiff‟s complaint as a declaration.2 

While Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not roll his pants down in response to 

Defendant Martinez‟ order, Plaintiff contends that he did comply with the order. (Compl. at ¶ 3.) 

Plaintiff also states that he did not throw his shoe, but placed it on the ground behind him. 

(Compl. at ¶ 5.) At this point, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Deathriage accused Plaintiff of 

throwing his shoe at him and told him he was going smash Plaintiff‟s face into the wall and 

smash his skull. (Compl. at ¶ 5.) When Plaintiff told Defendant Deathriage that he would file a 

602, Defendant Deathriage wrestled Plaintiff from a sitting position to a prone position and 

struck Plaintiff in the head with his knee. (Compl. at ¶¶ 6, 7.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 

Briones and Martinez joined Deathriage in striking Plaintiff with their knees. (Compl. at ¶ 17.) 

In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that he never tossed a shoe at any of the defendants. 

(ECF No. 42 at 1.) Plaintiff refers to his Exhibit B, indicating that it states Plaintiff was hit and 

rushed when he was seated facing away from the Defendants. Exhibit B is a copy of an Inmate 

Witness Statement as a part of the investigative employee‟s report of the event at issue. The 

witness, inmate Bell, responded in the affirmative to the question: “did you see the Correctional 

Officer‟s [sic] jump on inmate King, F-27519, for no reason while he was sitting down facing 

away from the correctional officer?” This limited information provides little to enlighten the 

Court on the present motion. There is no information on where the inmate was or what he was 

able to observe of the incident at issue. 

Plaintiff‟s Exhibit A includes the declarations of inmates Damion Johnson and Horatio 

Jones. Both inmates declare that they saw yard officers rushing to the scene. Neither of them 

indicate that they observed anything regarding the incident, other than Plaintiff being escorted to 

the program office barefoot and in handcuffs; and Plaintiff appeared to have some swelling to the 

right facial area and a swollen jaw. (Decl. of Damion Johnson at 2; Decl. of Horatio Jones at 2.) 

 

2

“A verified complaint may be treated as an affidavit to oppose summary judgment to the extent it is „based on 

personal knowledge‟ and „sets forth specific facts admissible in evidence.‟” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 n. 1 

(9th Cir. 1996) (quoting McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197-98 n. 1(9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)), amended by 

135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2004); Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1132 (n. 14 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

Defendants argue that in his deposition, Plaintiff clarifies that he was not in a position to 

see who was pressing on his back with their knees. (King Depo. 38:18.) In response to a 

question regarding whether any of the Defendants placed a knee on Plaintiff‟s back, Plaintiff 

testified that “I‟m not positive, but I believe so, yes.” (Id. 39:3.) Plaintiff was specifically asked, 

“the way they cuffed you, was it anything out of the ordinary about how they put the cuffs on 

you?” Plaintiff answered no. Plaintiff was then asked, “because clearly, to get handcuffs on 

somebody, you need to use a little force to get the arms into the cuffs and that kind of thing. It 

was just there was no continued kicking at that point or biting or anything?” (Id. 39:8-11.) 

Plaintiff answered no. However, Plaintiff‟s allegation is that while he was complying with 

Defendant Martinez‟ orders to remove his shoes, Defendants threw him to the ground and began 

striking him for no reason. In resolving a defendant‟s motion for summary judgment, the court is 

to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the non-moving party, Samuels v. Holland 

American Line-USA, Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 2011); Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807, 810 

(9th Cir. 2010), and liberally construe the filings and motions of pro se litigants, Thomas v. 

Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Making credibility determinations, weighing the evidence, and drawing legitimate 

inferences are functions for the jury, not the judge. Bravo v. Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 

(9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, whether Plaintiff was complying and the use of force was malicious 

and sadistic to cause harm or if the use of force was necessary to restore order because Plaintiff 

was non-compliant is an issue to be decided by the trier of fact. The Court finds that Plaintiff has 

met his burden to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Defendants‟ motion for 

summary judgment on the claim that Defendants use of force violated the Eighth Amendment 

should be denied. 

C. Medical Care

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to 

medical care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate‟s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 

Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating 

that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant‟s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference 

is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical 

need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 11222 (citing Jett, 439 

F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more 

than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); 

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

The parties submit the medical report of injury completed by Defendant Angulo. This 

shows that Defendant Angulo found no injuries and indicates that when asked to describe his 

injuries Plaintiff replied, “no comment.” (ECF No. 41-3 at 14.) There is a check mark to 

Plaintiff‟s right arm. (Id.) Defendant Angulo argues that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff admits that the only injuries he sustained in 

the alleged incident were several scratches on his arm, and jaw pain. (SUF No. 17.) 

According to Plaintiff, the scratches were not large and needed nothing other than a 

Band-Aid and some antiseptic. (Id.) The jaw pain that Plaintiff experienced was gone by the 

time he was moved from the holding cell to administrative segregation later that same day. (Id.) 

The appropriate treatment for jaw pain would have been a pain reliever, which Plaintiff already 

had a prescription for at the time of the incident. (Id.) Defendants have met their burden of 

informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the evidence which they believe 

demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. 

Defendants have come forward with evidence establishing that Plaintiff did not suffer 

from an objectively serious medical condition. Defendants submit the declaration of B. Barnett, 

M.D., who is the Chief Medical Consultant for the Receiver‟s Office of Legal Affairs. (ECF No. 

41-8.) Dr. Barnett has reviewed Plaintiff‟s complaint and medical records in this action. (Decl. 

of Barnett at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff‟s medical records demonstrate that prior to the incident at issue here, 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

Plaintiff had been receiving treatment for migraine headaches and was prescribed medication as 

needed for pain. (Decl. of Barnett at ¶ 12.) On the date of this incident, March 21, 2013, 

Plaintiff was examined by medical personnel and had an evaluation for mental health criteria. 

(Id.) An administrative segregation unit psychiatry intake was performed from March 22-24, 

2013 which noted no abnormalities documented in statements by Plaintiff or observations of 

Plaintiff. (Id.) On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff complained of feeling dizzy and seeing light flashes 

since he had been kneed by the officers and wanted to make sure nothing was wrong. (Id.) 

Plaintiff had an assessment on March 25, 2016, and was complaining of headaches for 4 weeks 

on and off. (Id.) The examination was unremarkable and Plaintiff was instructed to continue his 

medications as needed. (Id.) A progress note on April 9, 2013, notes Plaintiff is complaining of 

knee pain for one week since hitting knee getting off his bunk. (Id.) 

By Plaintiff‟s own admission, after this incident he suffered from scratches and jaw pain, 

for which he already had a prescription. The medical record demonstrates no further complaints 

of jaw pain or complications from the scratches he received. Based upon the evidence before the 

Court, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant Angulo was deliberately indifferent to a serious 

medical need of Plaintiff‟s. Further, Plaintiff‟s Exhibit C indicates that he was examined by 

Defendant Angulo on the date of the incident. Plaintiff offers no evidence to the contrary and 

argues that Defendant Angulo did not mark any of his injuries on the form. The Ninth Circuit 

has held that before it can be said that a prisoner‟s civil rights have been abridged, “the 

indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere „indifference,‟ „negligence,‟ or 

„medical malpractice‟ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 

622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-106 (1976)). 

Failing to note Plaintiff‟s injuries on the examination form without more is insufficient to find 

that Defendant Angulo was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need and failed to 

respond. Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to 

his deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Angulo. 

Judgment should therefore be entered in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff‟s claim of 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 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

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones‟s motion for summary judgment 

on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims be DENIED; 

b. Defendant Angulo‟s motion for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claim be GRANTED; and

2. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Angulo on the Eight Amendment 

deliberate indifference claim.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within 

twenty-one (21) days after being served with these finding and recommendations, the parties 

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Findings and Recommendations.” 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.2d 

F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 44 Filed 08/19/16 Page 13 of 13