Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00149/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00149-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

– 1 – 14cv149 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MCGHEE TONY DUCLOS, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 14-cv-149-BAS(KSC) 

ORDER: 

(1)OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS; 

(2)APPROVING AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY; AND 

(3)GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

[ECF Nos. 25, 46] 

 v. 

JOHN DOE TILLMAN, et al.,

 Defendants. 

On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff McGhee Tony Duclos, a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this civil-rights action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that certain prison guards used excessive force and acted 

with deliberate indifference as to his medical needs. The current operative complaint 

is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which names Matthew Tillman, 

Adrian Garcia, Jeremy Jones, and Isaac Alvarado (collectively, “Defendants”) as 

Case 3:14-cv-00149-BAS-KSC Document 56 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 7
 – 2 – 14cv149 

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 

defendants. Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff opposes. 

After the summary-judgment motion was fully briefed, United States 

Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R” 

or “report”), recommending that this Court: (1) find that Defendants are entitled to 

qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s excessive-force claim; and (2) grant Defendants’ 

summary-judgment motion in its entirety. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, and 

Defendants filed a reply. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he 

statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 

(D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had 

no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor 

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This 

rule of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. 

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a 

R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. 

Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in 

its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite 

the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 

(S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 

Case 3:14-cv-00149-BAS-KSC Document 56 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 7
 – 3 – 14cv149 

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 

In deciding a summary-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56, the district 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). A dispute is “genuine” only if 

“there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a 

verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). 

A factual dispute is “material” only if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under 

the governing law.” Id. at 248. “[I]nferences to be drawn from the underlying facts 

. . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). At the summary-judgment stage, the district court’s 

function is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to 

determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 

1861, 1866 (2014) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Furthermore, a “summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying 

solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.” Taylor v. List, 880 

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “The non-moving party must do more than show 

there is some ‘metaphysical doubt’ as to the material facts at issue.” Dzung Chu v. 

Oracle Corp., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586); 

see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252 (“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in 

support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on 

which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”). 

II. ANALYSIS1

This action arises from an incident that occurred on August 16, 2013 while 

Plaintiff was housed at the George Bailey Detention Center. According to Plaintiff, 

 

1

 The Court adopts and incorporates by reference all portions of the R&R that the parties do 

not object to. That includes most of the factual background presented in the report.

Case 3:14-cv-00149-BAS-KSC Document 56 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 7
 – 4 – 14cv149 

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 

he was diagnosed with “complex partial seizures,” which caused him to fall into a 

“non-convulsive seizure” and hit his head on the edge of the upper bunk in his cell. 

Plaintiff then left his cell with a large laceration on his head, with blood visible on 

his face and shirt, walking around the prison day room in a “dreamlike, trance like 

state.” When he regained consciousness, Plaintiff found that he was surrounded by 

prison guards, and “jumped back confused asking loudly what’s going on[?]” 

Plaintiff asserts that prison guards then used excessive force by punching his face, 

kicking him, and striking him with a baton or flashlight. Plaintiff also asserts that 

prison guards acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide timely care for 

his medical emergency and “proper housing” that accommodates his “complex 

partial seizures.” 

The R&R addresses all three of Plaintiff’s claims, with heavy emphasis on the 

video footage that Defendants submitted. The video footage was recorded from two 

security cameras at different locations in the day room where the incident took place. 

The recordings show the entire incident from start, when Plaintiff first came out of 

his cell, to finish, when prison guards wheeled Plaintiff out of the day room on a 

gurney to be taken to the hospital. Though Plaintiff’s declaration disputes many of 

the facts described by Defendants’ declarations, Judge Crawford found that “[g]iven 

the clarifying evidence in the video recordings and the other evidence submitted by 

[D]efendants, the statements made by [P]laintiff in his Declaration are not enough to 

raise a triable issue of fact.” (R&R 12:3-11.) Based on that resolution of the disputed 

facts, Judge Crawford recommends a finding of qualified immunity and that 

Defendants’ summary-judgment motion be granted in its entirety. 

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is improper because 

there are genuine issues of material fact that should be resolved at trial. Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s position is that his “affidavit squarely contradicts the defendants[’] story 

concerning the force used, when it was used, and why it was used[,]” and “[t]he facts 

alleged by the plaintiff are evidence that the defendants were acting ‘maliciously and 

Case 3:14-cv-00149-BAS-KSC Document 56 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 7
 – 5 – 14cv149 

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 

sadistically’ to cause harm[.]” (Pl.’s Objections 4-5.) In many other circumstances 

with competing statements in declarations, Plaintiff’s reasoning may have merit. 

However, the existence of unambiguous video footage can alter how the district court 

assesses the facts of the case. And in this case, Plaintiff wholly fails to account for 

the video footage in his objections. 

Addressing the treatment of video footage at least in an excessive-force 

context, the United States Supreme Court has stated that “[w]hen opposing parties 

tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that 

no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts 

for the purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 

U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007). When faced with such a “version of events . . . so utterly 

discredited by the record,” the Supreme Court instructs lower courts to not rely on 

“such visible fiction” and “view[] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” 

Id.; see also Shreve v. Franklin Cnty., 743 F.3d 126, 132 (6th Cir. 2014) (“[W]itness 

accounts seeking to contradict an unambiguous video recording do not create a triable 

issue.”). 

Plaintiff does not challenge the accuracy of the video footage. But having 

nonetheless reviewed it, the Court finds Judge Crawford’s recounting of events to be 

accurate. The Court further finds Judge Crawford’s determination that the video 

footage resolves disputed issues of material fact is proper in light of Scott. See Scott, 

550 U.S. at 380-81. The video footage shows prison guards calmly following 

Plaintiff to the tables in the day room, where he sits down, only to fall over onto the 

floor shortly thereafter. (Defs.’ Mot. Ex E.) When Plaintiff falls over, several prison 

guards rush to assist him. (Id.) As the prison guards attempt to reseat Plaintiff in a 

supportive, non-threatening manner, he abruptly starts flailing his arms and pushing 

those closest to him in an aggressive, combative manner. (Id.) At that point, about 

a dozen prison guards descend on Plaintiff to restrain him by applying a reasonable 

amount of force. (Id.) There is no footage of any guard violently punching or kicking 

Case 3:14-cv-00149-BAS-KSC Document 56 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 7
 – 6 – 14cv149 

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 

Plaintiff, or striking him with a baton or flashlight. (Id.) Ultimately, the prison 

guards succeed in restraining Plaintiff and roll him out on a gurney to be taken to the 

hospital. (Id.) 

Upon reviewing Plaintiff’s FAC, the parties’ briefs, and the R&R de novo, this 

Court agrees with Judge Crawford’s conclusion that “[n]o reasonable jury could view 

the video recordings and the other evidence in the record and conclude there was 

excessive force by any of the defendants who were involved in the incident on August 

16, 2013.” (R&R 15:7-19.) The Court further agrees that “no reasonable jury could 

conclude defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical 

condition.” (R&R 21:11-23.) As Judge Crawford observes, prison personnel “acted 

quickly, efficiently, and reasonably under the circumstances,” and “[m]edical 

personnel were promptly notified of plaintiff’s medical emergency, and plaintiff was 

transported to the medical clinic without delay.” (Id.) 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

Having conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the parties’ briefs, and 

relevant portions of the record, the Court concludes that Judge Crawford’s reasoning 

is sound. Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, and hereby 

approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified 

immunity with respect to the excessive-force claim, see Pearson v. Callahan, 555 

U.S. 223, 232 (2009), and GRANTS Defendants’ summary-judgment motion in its 

entirety (ECF No. 25). 

The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ reply filed 

pursuant to Rule 11 for “reckless misstatement[s] of law and facts” because the 

motion lacks merit. (ECF No. 33.) Lastly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 

the appointment of counsel because Plaintiff fails to establish “exceptional 

circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 53). See Palmer v. 

Case 3:14-cv-00149-BAS-KSC Document 56 Filed 03/11/16 Page 6 of 7
 – 7 – 14cv149 

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 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 

390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 11, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-00149-BAS-KSC Document 56 Filed 03/11/16 Page 7 of 7