Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00357/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00357-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

RONALD CHRISMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv0357-AJB-MDD

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

[ECF No. 32]

vs.

A. VERKOUTEREN, et al.,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

and Local Civil Rules 72.1 and 72.3(f) of the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California. For the reasons set forth herein,

the Court RECOMMENDS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

be GRANTED. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ronald Chrisman (“Plaintiff”) was a state prisoner formerly

incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan”). 

(ECF No. 13 at 3). On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed the operative Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 13). In his SAC, Plaintiff claims

that on February 22, 2009, at Donovan, Defendants Verkouteren, Hice,

Samaniego, White, and Mendoza assaulted him and violated his civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 14-15). 

- 1 - 11-cv-0357-AJB-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-00357-AJB-MDD Document 37 Filed 07/30/13 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

27

28

On October 4, 2011, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s SAC. 

(ECF No. 14). On May 10, 2013, Defendants Hice and Samaniego filed

the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 32). On June 14,

2013, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition in response to the

Defendants’ Motion. (ECF No. 34). 

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff claims that he was assaulted on February 22, 2009,

violating his civil rights. (ECF No. 13 at 14-15). Plaintiff alleges that

while he was waiting in an outdoor “pill line,” Samaniego asked Plaintiff

to button his jacket. (ECF No. 13 at 7). Plaintiff states that he did not

comply with Samaniego’s request, and that as a result, he was

handcuffed, thrown to the ground, and dragged to a “work change” area

by several of the correctional officers on duty. (Id. at 6-8). Plaintiff

alleges that the officers then took turns beating him, causing him severe

injuries. (Id. at 8). 

In his SAC, Plaintiff made specific claims regarding the

participation of Samaniego and Hice in the alleged assault. (See id.). He

alleged that Samaniego participated in the beating, and that Hice

watched the beating without taking any steps to prevent it. (Id.). In

their Motion for Summary Judgment, Samaniego and Hice present a

different set of facts than those alleged by Plaintiff. The version

presented by these Defendants is consistent with Plaintiff’s deposition

testimony. (See ECF Nos. 32 and 34). 

In her Declaration supporting the Motion, Samaniego denies having

any physical contact with Plaintiff on the day in question. (ECF No. 32-5

at 2-3). Samaniego admits to monitoring the pill line, and to seeing

Plaintiff be taken to the work change area. (Id.). However, Samaniego

alleges that she did not see Plaintiff again that day, and did not witness

- 2 - 11-cv-0357-AJB-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-00357-AJB-MDD Document 37 Filed 07/30/13 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

27

28

the alleged assault. (Id.). Plaintiff admits in his deposition that

Samaniego was not in the work change area when the alleged assault

occurred.1

 (ECF. No. 32-4 at 28-29). Plaintiff claims that Samaniego

accompanied him to the work change area, but “she left right away.” 

(Id.). 

According to Hice’s Declaration, he was in an observation tower

near the outdoor pill line when he saw Plaintiff fall to the ground. (ECF

No. 31-3 at 15-17). Hice further alleges that he stayed in the tower after

Plaintiff was taken to the work change area, and did not observe or have

knowledge of the alleged assault. (Id.). In his deposition, Plaintiff

admitted that he did not know where Hice was when the alleged assault

occurred. (ECF No. 32-4 at 35-36). When asked whether he knew who

Hice was, Plaintiff responded, “not exactly, no.” (Id. at 34).

IV. DISCUSSION

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the

granting of summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that

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

P. 56(c); Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The parties

bear the same substantive burden of proof as would apply at a trial on

the merits, including plaintiff’s burden to establish any element essential

to his case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

(9th Cir. 1989). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial

burden of demonstrating to the court that summary judgment is

appropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The burden then shifts to the non1

 Plaintiff refers to Defendant Samaniego as “the female officer” in his

deposition testimony. (See ECF No. 1 at 32-4). 

- 3 - 11-cv-0357-AJB-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-00357-AJB-MDD Document 37 Filed 07/30/13 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

27

28

moving party to provide evidence beyond the pleadings that shows that

summary judgment is inappropriate. Id. at 322-24. 

To successfully rebut a properly supported motion for summary

judgment, the non-moving party “must point to some facts in the record

that demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact and, with all

reasonable inferences made in the plaintiff’s favor, could convince a

reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff.” Reese v. Jefferson School Dist.

No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 738 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). 

“As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are

material.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

Only factual disputes that might affect the outcomes of the suit will

properly preclude entry of summary judgment. Id. 

In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants Samaniego

and Hice allege that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact with

respect to the claims against them. (ECF No. 32 at 1-10). Plaintiff

admitted in his deposition that Samaniego was not present when he was

allegedly assaulted. (ECF No. 32-4 at 28-29). Plaintiff also admitted

that he did not know who Hice was, and that he did not see Hice during

the alleged assault. (Id. at 34-36). These admissions are consistent with

Declarations provided by Samaniego and Hice denying that they were

present at the time of the alleged assault. (See ECF No. 32-5 and 32-3). 

There is no evidence before the Court contradicting the fact that

Defendants Samaniego and Hice were not present.

Given the facts that Plaintiff now admits, no reasonable jury could

find in Plaintiff’s favor against these Defendants. See Reese, 208 F.3d at

738. In light of these facts, and Plaintiff’s Statement of Non-Opposition

to the Motion, there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to

Plaintiff’s original claims that Samaniego and Hice violated his civil

- 4 - 11-cv-0357-AJB-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-00357-AJB-MDD Document 37 Filed 07/30/13 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

27

28

rights by participating in the alleged assault, and Defendants are

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. Thus, the Court

RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be

GRANTED.

V. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United

States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the

court and serve a copy on all parties by August 13, 2013. The document

shall be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendations.” Any

reply to the objections shall be served and filed by August 20, 2013. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specific time

may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2013

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 5 - 11-cv-0357-AJB-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-00357-AJB-MDD Document 37 Filed 07/30/13 Page 5 of 5