-SMS Taylor v. Clark et al, No. 1:2007cv00032 - Document 170 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 158 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING In Part and GRANTING In Part 112 and 113 Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Clark and Adams, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/16/2011. (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-SMS Taylor v. Clark et al Doc. 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GERALD TAYLOR, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00032-AWI-SMS PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS CLARK AND ADAMS KEN CLARK, et al., Defendants. / (Documents #112, #113, & #158) 14 15 Plaintiff Gerald Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 16 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On February 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that 19 recommended Defendants Clark and Adams’s motion for summary judgment be denied in part 20 and granted in part. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and 21 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to 22 be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. 158.) On March 2, 2011, Defendants Clark and Adams 23 filed objections. (Docs. 164, 165.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this court conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the Findings 26 and Recommendations to be supported by both the record and proper analysis. 27 In the objections, Defendants Clark and Adams point out that the content of the Findings 28 and Recommendations states summary judgment should be granted on any failure to train claim 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 against Defendants Clark and Adams but the conclusion implies that the court is proceeding with 2 the failure to train claim. The conclusion should reflect that Defendants Clark and Adams are 3 entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim to the extent it is based on 4 allegations of failing to train Defendant McKesson. 5 In the objections, Defendants Clark and Adams focus on Defendant Clark’s alleged lack 6 of knowledge of any incident involving Defendant McKesson and an inmate prior to the incident 7 at issue in this action. Defendants state that the adverse action that Defendant Clark knew about 8 “did not involve excessive force against an inmate, but rather involved verbal insubordination.” 9 As shown from Plaintiff’s Exhibit B and Exhibit I, the adverse action involving Lieutenant 10 Pineda arose from him intervening in an excessive force incident, which included Defendant 11 McKesson pinning an inmate against a wall. Thus, in reviewing incidents involving other staff, 12 Defendant Clark would have also learned about alleged excessive force against an inmate. In 13 addition, Defendant McKesson’s harsh reactions to superior staff allegedly “disrespecting” 14 Defendant McKesson gives insight into how Defendant McKesson would react if an inmate 15 “disrespected” Defendant McKesson. Finally, both Defendant Clark and Defendant Adams 16 testified that when reviewing investigations into officers, a warden would have had the officer’s 17 entire personnel file, which would include prior uses of force on inmates. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 18 B & Exhibit H. Thus, the court finds that the objections’ contentions that Defendant Clark had 19 no knowledge of any incident involving Defendant McKesson allegedly using force on an inmate 20 is not supported by the record and does not entitle Defendant Clark to qualified immunity. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on February 16, 2011 (Doc. 158), is 23 adopted with the correction that the conclusion should reflect that Defendants 24 Clark and Adams are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims based on 25 their failure to train Defendant McKesson; and 26 27 2. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Clark and Adams on December 6, 2010 (Docs. 112, 113) is both GRANTED and DENIED as follows; 28 2 1 a. As to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Clark and Adams for any 2 failure to properly train Defendant McKesson, the motion is GRANTED; 3 and 4 b. 5 6 As to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Clark and Adams for failure to supervise and/or discipline Defendant McKesson, the motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: 0m8i78 March 16, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
