Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01343/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01343-6/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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISIDRO ROMAN, Civil No. 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Document No. 78]

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendant.

On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 78.) On February 5, 2010, Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 81.) On February 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a

Reply. (Doc. 83.) On September 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third

Amended Complaint (Doc. 70), which is the subject of a Report and Recommendation filed on June

24, 2010. The Court takes into account those recommendations in its analysis here of Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Based upon a thorough review of the parties’ papers, and for the reasons set forth below, the

undersigned magistrate judge respectfully RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be DENIED without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Specific Factual Allegations

Plaintiff is an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison

at Corcoran, California. Plaintiff files this suit, complaining of events which he claims occurred

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 11
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

TAC refers to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

- 2 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

while he was an inmate at Calipatria State Prison (“CSP-CAL”) and Kern Valley State Prison

(“KSVP”).

Plaintiff alleges that on September 15, 2005, he requested to be placed in Administrative

Segregation due to threats against him by other inmates. His request was approved, and Defendants

Martinez and Hernandez escorted him to his assigned cell in Administrative Segregation. (TAC1 ¶

26-27.) Plaintiff was classified as a “Sensitive Needs” inmate, and this classification required that

he not be celled with certain other inmates. (TAC ¶ 29.) Plaintiff alleges this classification was

omitted from the order to place him in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff alleges this omission

was intentional, and that Defendants Martinez and Hernandez placed him in a cell with an

incompatible inmate from the general population. (TAC ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that soon after his

placement in that cell, the other inmate attacked him. (TAC ¶ 33.) He claims that during the attack,

which continued for several minutes, Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and

Barajas simply watched as it continued. (TAC ¶ 34.) These Defendants finally subdued the other

inmate and ordered Plaintiff to the floor. (TAC ¶ 35.) Plaintiff contends Defendants Martinez,

Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas then proceeded to use excessive force on him,

jumping on his back, twisting his arms and legs, elbowing his back and rib cage, and banging his

head against the concrete floor. (TAC ¶ 36.) Plaintiff was then taken to be examined by a medical

technician, who noted all of Plaintiff’s injuries on a form, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff’s

TAC. (TAC ¶ 37.) Defendants Martinez and Hernandez wrote rules violations reports charging

Plaintiff with initiating the violence. Plaintiff claims that this charge was false. (TAC ¶ 39.) 

Plaintiff was eventually exonerated of this charge. (TAC ¶ 40.) Plaintiff filed a grievance in

connection with this incident. (TAC ¶ 41.)

Plaintiff also alleges Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas

conspired with Defendants Rush, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzalez, and Rodriguez-Toledo to

interfere with Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to file a grievance. Plaintiff contends they did so by

calling him names such as “child molester,” “rat,” and “snitch” in front of other inmates. (TAC ¶

38.) Plaintiff claims that as a result of this name-calling, he was again attacked by another inmate

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 11
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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

on November 15, 2005. As a result of that incident, Plaintiff was issued another rules violation

report, charging him with mutual combat. (TAC ¶ 42.) At the hearing on this charge, Plaintiff

claims Defendant Greenwood, the Senior Hearing Officer, offered to dismiss the charge if Plaintiff

would drop his grievance. (TAC ¶ 43.) He contends that because he declined this offer, he was

denied the right to present evidence. Plaintff was found guilty of the charge. (TAC ¶¶ 44-45.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Gonzales, Alderete, Lopez, and

Rodriguez-Toledo continued to call him names in front of other inmates, which caused other inmates

to throw urine and excrement on him during any movement from his cell or other escort. (TAC ¶

46.) He further alleges he was denied medial treatment when these incidents occurred. (TAC ¶ 47.) 

Plaintiff also alleges he was denied medical treatment after he was attacked on September 15, 2005,

and November 15, 2005, and he claims to have suffered a broken hand, an injured knee, a fractured

nose, black eyes, jaw injuries, and a back injury. (TAC ¶ 48.) 

Plaintiff alleges Defendants Giurbino, Bourland, Paramo, Butler, Bell, Newman, and

Greenwood should have known about the conduct of the other Defendants because of the rules

violation reports that had been written and because of the grievance that Plaintiff had filed. (TAC ¶

49.) 

Plaintiff alleges that after his transfer to Kern Valley State Prison, he sought medical

treatment for the injuries he sustained at Calipatria State Prison, but Defendant Terrones denied him

treatment. He claims that when he filed grievances about the matter, Defendant Zamora retaliated

and interfered with his grievance procedures. (TAC ¶ 50.) 

Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Giurbino, Bourland, Paramo, and Butler were aware of

instances in which staff staged inmate fights, and the other Defendants’ rules violation reports

against Plaintiff should have caused Defendants Giurbino, Bourland, Paramo, and Bell to investigate

and correct the situation in which Plaintiff’s rights were violated. (TAC ¶ 51.)

B. Procedural Background

On July 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Adams, Crones, Giurbino,

and Zamora. (Doc. 1). On August 6, 2007, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice for

failure to pay filing fees and/or move to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). On August 8,

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 11
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

 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and

unusual punishment by (1) being indifferent to his medical needs, and (2) using excessive force.

- 4 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

2007, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Knowles, Bourland, Cobbs,

Paramo, Moncayo, Butler, Arline, Bell, Carrillo, Din, Newman, Greenwood, Hinshaw, Cake,

Martinez, Lane, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez,

Gonzales, Rodriguez-Toledo, Terrones, DOES 1-100, Adams, Giurbino, and Zamora. (Doc. No. 4). 

On October 18, 2007, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without

prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 8). 

On December 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Defendants

Bourland, Paramo, Butler, Bell, Din, Newman, Greenwood, Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt,

Rodiles, Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzales, Rodriguez-Toledo, Terrones, Giurbino,

and Zamora. (Doc. 13.) On March 28, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint. (Doc. 41). On January 26, 2009, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc.

55) that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted, which the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

adopted in part, and rejected in part. (Doc. 64.) 

On August 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 69.) In his

complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his (1) First Amendment right to be free from

retaliation, (2) Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers, (3) Fourteenth Amendment right to

due process, and (4) Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.2

 (Doc.

69 at 24-29.) 

On September 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint. (MTD at 70.) Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that: (1) Defendants are

immune from liability for damages in their official capacities under the Eleventh Amendment; (2)

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the First Amendment for

retaliation; (3) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the

Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment; (4) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to his medical needs;

(5) Plaintiff’s Due Process claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey; (6) Giurbino, Bourland,

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 11
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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

Paramo, Butler, Bell, Newman, and Greenwood cannot be held liable under a theory or respondeat

superior for certain claims; (7) Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity on

Plaintiff’s claims under the First, Sixth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendment for deliberate

indifference to medical needs; (8) Plaintiff failed to comply with California Government Claim Act;

and (9) Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot. (MTD at 10-23.)

On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 78.) On February 5, 2010, Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 81.) On February 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Reply. 

(Doc. 83.) 

On June 24, 2010, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation granting in part and

denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. If the Court

adopts these recommendations, Plaintiff’s only remaining causes of action are the following: (1) First

Amendment Claim for Retaliation against Defendants Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez,

Gonzalez, Rodriguez-Toledo, Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, and Rodiles; and (2) Eighth

Amendment Claim for Excessive Force against Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt,

Rodiles, and Barajas.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) authorizes the granting of summary judgment “if the

pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same as for the granting

of a directed verdict. Judgment must be entered “if, under the governing law, there can be but one

reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51

(1986). However, “[i]f reasonable minds could differ,” judgment should not be entered in favor of

the moving party. Id.; see also Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007) (“If

a rational trier of fact might resolve the issue in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment

must be denied.”) (alteration omitted).

//

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 5 of 11
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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

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. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at

252; Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989).

The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying the elements of the claim in the

pleadings, or other evidence, which the moving party “believes demonstrates the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.

144 (1970); Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). “A material issue of

fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties’ differing

versions of the truth.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1982).

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish, beyond the pleadings, that there

is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. 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 [nonmoving party’s] favor, could convince a reasonable jury to find for the [nonmoving party].” Reese v.

Jefferson School Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 738 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing FED.R.CIV.P. 56; Celotex,

477 U.S. at 323; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249); see also Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652,

658 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that the non-moving party may defeat summary judgment if she makes a

showing sufficient to establish a question of material fact requiring a trial to resolve). 

“To defeat a summary judgment motion ..., the non-moving party ‘may not rest upon the mere

allegations or denials’ in the pleadings. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e). Instead, the non-moving party “must

establish the existence of a genuine factual dispute on the basis of admissible evidence; bare

allegations without evidentiary support are insufficient to survive summary judgment.” Estate of

Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Interscope Records, Inc., 2008 WL 341709 at *9 n.14 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2008)

(Nos. 05-56045, 06-55376). However, even evidence “presented in an inadmissable form” may be

considered at the summary judgment stage, if “the contents of the evidence would be admissible at

trial.” See Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“At the summary judgment stage,

we do not focus on the admissibility of the evidence’s form. We instead focus on the admissibility of

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 6 of 11
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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

its contents.”).

Here, the Court considered documents attached to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc.

69), which the law allows. While the district court is “not required to comb the record to find some

reason to deny a motion for summary judgment,” Forsberg v. Pacific N.W. Bell Tel. Co., 840 F.2d

1409, 1417-18 (9th Cir. 1988), Nilsson v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1545 (9th Cir. 1988),

the court may nevertheless exercise its discretion “in appropriate circumstances,” to consider

materials in the record which are on file but not “specifically referred to.” Carmen v. San Francisco

Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001).

V. DISCUSSION

In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff alleges the following three facts are

undisputed: (1) “Plaintiff was exposed to physical assault when placed intentionally in the wrong cell,

and was beaten by prison guards;” (2) “Plaintiff was wrongly charged of a Rules Violation Report,

and that eventually he was exonerated of all charges;” and (3) Plaintiff “suffered several injuries and

was untreated for a long period of time.” (Doc. 78 at 3.) Based thereon, Plaintiff asserts he is entitled

to a judgment as a matter of law. (Id.) 

Defendants contend Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied for the

following reasons: (1) The case can be disposed of without the Court having to decide substantive

constitutional issues; (2) Plaintiff has not established his claimed undisputed facts are undisputed; and

(3) even if Plaintiff had established his allegedly undisputed facts are undisputed, these facts are not

sufficient to support his constitutional claims. (Doc. 81 at 2.) 

A. Recommended Dismissed Claims

In its June 24, 2010 Report and Recommendation, the Court recommended dismissing

Plaintiff’s following claims against all Defendants: (1) Sixth Amendment claim; (2) Eighth

Amendment Claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment Due

Process Claim. Based on the recommended dismissal of these claims, the Court declines to address

these claims in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court, however, addresses Plaintiff’s

surviving claims, his First Amendment and Eighth Amendment excessive force claims.

//

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 7 of 11
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, however, fails to submit a separate statement of uncontroverted facts with his Motion

for Summary Judgment.

- 8 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

B. Plaintiff’s Claims Are Not Undisputed

As stated above, Plaintiff states three facts are undisputed in his Motion for Summary

Judgment.3

 Defendants assert certain documents that are attached to Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint (“TAC”) contradict his claim that the first and third statements of fact are undisputed. 

(Doc. 81 at 5.) 

First, Plaintiff contends he “was exposed to physical assault when placed intentionally in the

wrong cell, and was beaten by prison guards.” (Doc. 78 at 3.) Defendants contend Plaintiff’s claim

is disputed. (Doc. 81 at 4-5.) Although Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff was placed in the wrong

cell and received physical injuries as a result of an altercation with his cell mate, they allege

Plaintiff’s claim his placement in the wrong cell was intentional is contradicted by the record. (Doc.

81 at 5.) 

A review of the record shows Plaintiff’s first statement of fact is disputed. Specifically, a

copy of a crime incident report attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s TAC states, “A review of the GA

154 reveals that Inmate Roman was housed in cell 239 in error. The GA 154 was corrected and the

correction was smudged on the copy that used to house him.” (Doc. 69-2 at 68.) Further, a copy of

the report of a hearing in which the charge against Plaintiff was dismissed states, “SHO verified

information with Ad Seg that an error occurred that housed a SNY inmate with a General Population

inmate.” (Id. At 84.) At the very least, these documents create a dispute as to whether Plaintiff’s

placement in the wrong cell was an error, rather than intentional. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first claimed

undisputed fact is disputed. 

Second, Plaintiff contends he “suffered several injuries and was untreated for a long period of

time.” (Doc. 78 at 3.) Defendants contend Plaintiff’s claim is contradicted by a document attached

as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s TAC. (Doc. 81 at 5-6.) 

A review of the record shows Plaintiff’s third statement of fact is disputed. In a September

15, 2005 medical examination report, it is apparent Plaintiff received medical treatment the same day

as his cell incident. (Doc. 69-2 at 36.) Plaintiff also acknowledges he was seen by medical personnel

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 8 of 11
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

 Plaintiff’s remaining constitutional claims include: (1) First Amendment Claim for Retaliation

against Defendants Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzalez, Rodriguez-Toledo, Martinez,

Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, and Rodiles; and (2) Eighth Amendment Claim for Excessive Force against

Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas.

- 9 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

immediately following the incident in his TAC. (TAC at ¶ 37.) At the very least, this document and

Plaintiff’s assertion create a dispute as to the delay, if any, before Plaintiff received medical treatment

after the September 15, 2005 incident. Therefore, Plaintiff’s third claimed undisputed fact is

disputed.

In light of the existence of a genuine factual dispute as to Plaintiff’s first and third claimed

undisputed facts, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED

without prejudice. 

C. Plaintiff’s Failure to Establish Constitutional Claims

Even if the Court finds Plaintiff’s three facts alleged in his Motion for Summary Judgment are

undisputed, these facts are not sufficient to support Plaintiff’s two remaining constitutional claims.4

1. First Amendment Claim for Retaliation

In his TAC, Plaintiff contends Defendants Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzalez,

Rodriguez-Toledo, Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, and Rodiles retaliated against him in

violation of his First Amendment rights. (TAC ¶¶ 38, 41, 49, 50.) Defendants contend Plaintiff fails

to plead sufficient facts to entitle him to summary judgment on this claim. (Doc. 81 at 6.)

The Constitution provides protections against "deliberate retaliation" by prison officials

against an inmate’s exercise of his right to petition for redress of grievances. Soranno’s Gasco, Inc.

v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Because retaliation by prison officials may chill an

inmate’s exercise of his legitimate First Amendment rights, such conduct is actionable even if it

would not otherwise rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Thomas v. Carpenter, 881 F.2d

828, 830 (9th Cir. 1989). However, there must be a causal connection between the allegedly

retaliatory conduct and the action that purportedly provoked the retaliation. Thus, “timing can

properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent.” Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d

802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a plaintiff must show that the protected conduct was a

"substantial" or "motivating" factor in the defendant’s decision to act. Soranno’s Gasco, 874 F.2d at

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 9 of 11
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

 Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim in their

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

- 10 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

1314; Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977). 

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic

elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because

of that prisoner's protected conduct, (3) the prisoner exercised protected conduct, (4) and that the

state actor’s action chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) was not

narrowly tailored to advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-

68 (9th Cir. 2005).

Assuming Plaintiff’s first assertion that he “was exposed to physical assault when placed

intentionally in the wrong cell, and was beaten by prison guards,” is undisputed, Plaintiff establishes

the first element of the Rhodes pleading standard, that Defendants took adverse action against him. 

(Doc. 78 at 3.) However, Plaintiff’s statements that he was wrongly charged with a rule violation and

that his medical needs were neglected do not establish that Defendants took some adverse action

against him because of his protected conduct, that he exercised protected conduct, and that

Defendants’ actions chilled his exercise of his First Amendment rights, which was not narrowly

tailored to advance a legitimate correctional goal. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claimed undisputed facts fail

to establish elements 2-5 of the Rhodes pleading standard.

2. Eighth Amendment Claim for Excessive Force

In his TAC, Plaintiff claims Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and

Barajas used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment.5

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of

the [Eighth Amendment], 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); Schwenk v. Anderson, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000); Berg

v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir. 1986). Courts examine (1) the need for application of

force; (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force used; (3) the extent of injury

inflicted; (4) the extent of threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 10 of 11
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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

responsible officials on the basis of facts known to them; and (5) any efforts made to temper the

severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7.

Assuming Plaintiff’s assertions are undisputed, Plaintiff’s claim that he was intentionally

placed in the wrong cell, beaten by prison guards, and suffered several injuries satisfies the third

element of the Hudson standard, the extent of the injury inflicted. However, Plaintiff’s claimed

undisputed facts fail to establish or refute the following: the need for application of force; the

relationship between the need and the amount of force used; the extent of threat to the safety of staff

and inmates, as reasonably perceived by responsible officials on the basis of facts known to them;

and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claimed

undisputed facts fail to establish elements 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Hudson standard.

Based thereon, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

be DENIED without prejudice. 

VI. CONCLUSION

After thorough review of the record in this case and based on the foregoing, the Court hereby

RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED without prejudice.

This report and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Court 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 on or before July 16, 2010. The document

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed no later than 14 days after being served with the objections. The parties are

further advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2010

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

all parties

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 89 Filed 06/25/10 Page 11 of 11