Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06843/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06843-3/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

DANIEL ROWE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CORCORAN STATE PRISON,

Defendant. 

 /

1:00-cv-06843-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 91)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc.84)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 84)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Daniel Rowe (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 27, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On July 1, 2995, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time.

On July 14, 2005, the court granted plaintiff an additional

Case 1:00-cv-06843-AWI-LJO Document 98 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 4
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

thirty (30) days within which to respond. On August 12, 2005,

plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, including the objections, the Court finds the

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. 

"[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using

excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is ... whether

force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm."

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). In determining

whether the use of force was for the purpose of maintaining or

restoring discipline, or for the malicious and sadistic purpose

of causing harm, a court may evaluate the need for application of

force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force

used, the extent of any injury inflicted, the threat reasonably

perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to

temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7; LeMaire v.

Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1454 (9th Cir.1993). 

In his objections, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge

failed to consider why Plaintiff refused to comply with orders

that he return his food tray and close the food port. Plaintiff

claims he took the actions he did because he wanted to talk to a

lieutenant about not receiving a shower. Regardless of why

Case 1:00-cv-06843-AWI-LJO Document 98 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff refused orders, Plaintiff admits he refused them

repeatedly, leaving Defendants with little other choices. In

the objections, Plaintiff states that he was not assaulted until

after being pepper sprayed and handcuffed. While Plaintiff

argues it would have been unlogical for him to resist at this

point, Plaintiff has provided no evidence, such as his own

affidavit, stating Plaintiff was not continuing to resist and

attack officers after being pepper sprayed and handcuffed. While

the threat Plaintiff posed at this point may have been less, the

court cannot find it would have been impossible for Plaintiff to

been fighting with the officers after being pepper sprayed and

handcuffed. Thus, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

finding regarding Defendants’ use of force.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion

that Defendant Conklin is entitled to summary judgment on

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to medical care claim. A

prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute

cruel and unusual punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the

level of “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A prison official

does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the

official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate

health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Plaintiff appears to be contending that given the nature of is

wounds, Defendant Conklin should have done more for him. To

survive a motion for summary judgment on the issue of deliberate

indifference a plaintiff must “put forward specific,

nonconclusory factual allegations that establish improper motive”

Case 1:00-cv-06843-AWI-LJO Document 98 Filed 08/29/05 Page 3 of 4
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

for the defendant's actions or omissions. Jeffers v. Gomez, 267

F.3d 895, 911 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotations and citations

omitted). Here, Plaintiff has only stated his belief Defendant

Conklin should have done more for him. A “difference of medical

opinion ... [is] insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish

deliberate indifference.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332

(9th Cir.1996). Thus, Defendant Conklin is also entitled to

summary judmgnet.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 27, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action for

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, filed

August 25, 2004, is DENIED;

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s

excessive force claim against defendants Smyth, Tomlin, Escalera,

Olivarria, Cribbs, Recek, and Pear; the supervisory liability

claim against defendants Castro, Ortiz, and Land; and, the

medical care claims against defendant Conklin, filed August 25,

2004, is GRANTED; and,

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgement

in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06843-AWI-LJO Document 98 Filed 08/29/05 Page 4 of 4