Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01783-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgar Clark
Defendant
Timothy Howard
Plaintiff
J. Wang
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. WANG, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:10cv01783 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Documents 56 & 77)

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants J. Wang and 

Edgar Clark.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 30, 2014. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

On July 24, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court 

found that Defendant Wang is entitled to summary judgment on all claims, and that Defendant 

Clark is entitled to summary judgment on all claims except for Plaintiff’s claim that he was 

deliberately indifferent in completing the Chrono without providing Plaintiff with wheelchair use

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 81 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

outside of his cell. The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections 

were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff requested an extension of time and filed timely 

objections on September 29, 2014.1 Defendants did not file a reply. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 

and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff first argues that Defendant Wang is not entitled to summary judgment because 

Defendant Wang did not dispute certain facts in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Wang told him that he knew that could not walk because he was 

paralyzed, but custody wanted his appliances taken. Plaintiff suggests that this shows that 

Defendant Wang’s reclassification from DPW to DPO status was deliberately indifferent.2 

However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, Defendant Wang’s notes from that examination also 

state that he was informed that Plaintiff was standing up when he attacked a correctional officer. 

Plaintiff has failed to raise a dispute of material fact concerning Defendants’ reliance on the 

information that was given to them, and this reliance negates a finding of deliberate indifference. 

Defendant Wang’s alleged statement does not change this result.

Plaintiff also points to an apparent inconsistency in a footnote overruling his attempt to 

dispute a fact, where the Magistrate Judge stated that Defendant Wang noted that Plaintiff was

DPO status, rather than DPW status. ECF No. 77, at 10. Plaintiff is correct that Defendant 

Wang noted that Plaintiff was DPW status, but the inconsistency is irrelevant. The Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling remains valid based on the additional factors cited, and the Magistrate Judge 

correctly used the terms throughout the decision when discussing the motion’s merits.

 

1

Plaintiff signed his objections on September 21, 2014.

2 As the Magistrate Judge explained, “DPW” stands for full-time wheelchair user, which requires wheelchair use in 

an inmate’s cell. “DPO” stands for intermittent wheelchair user, which does not require the use of wheelchair inside 

the cell. Rather, “DPO” status requires the use of wheelchair outside of the inmate’s cell. 

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 81 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Next, Plaintiff argues that staff went in search of officers to override Defendant Wang’s 

orders (which were to release him with a wheelchair), and that Defendant Clark arrived “hostile 

and unprofessional. . .” ECF No. 80, at 12. He contends that this demonstrates that the 

reclassification from DPW to DPO was intentional, rather than a mistake. It was undisputed, 

however, that the reclassification was intentional, and based on information that Defendants were 

given about Plaintiff’s attack on staff. Plaintiff’s speculation does not create a disputed fact. 

The alleged mistake occurred when Defendants completed a Chrono that did not include 

wheelchair use outside of Plaintiff’s cell. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed whether a 

genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether this was done with deliberate indifference. 

Both Defendants conceded that the reclassification should have included wheelchair use outside 

of Plaintiff’s cell, yet only Defendant Clark’s statement that Plaintiff could crawl on his belly 

created a genuine dispute as to whether the omission was a mistake. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 24, 2014 are ADOPTED in 

full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Document 56) is GRANTED as to 

Defendant Wang on all claims and Defendant Clark on all claims except for 

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Clark was deliberately indifferent in completing 

the Chrono without providing Plaintiff with wheelchair use outside of his cell; and

3. This action SHALL therefore proceed against Defendant Clark on Plaintiff’s 

claim that Defendant Clark was deliberately indifferent in completing the Chrono 

without providing Plaintiff with wheelchair use outside of his cell.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 81 Filed 10/29/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 81 Filed 10/29/14 Page 4 of 4