-SMS (PC) Garcia v. Masiel et al, No. 1:2007cv01750 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 74 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Defendants' 57 Motion for Summary Judgment, and REFERRING Matter back to Magistrate Judge signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/22/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Garcia v. Masiel et al Doc. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT GARCIA, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01750-AWI-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants. (Doc. 57) v. A. MASIEL, et al., 14 / 15 Plaintiff Robert Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 3, 2007. The matter was referred to 17 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed December 3, 2007, against Defendant 19 Ojeda on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim and against Defendant Silva on 20 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation 21 claim. On July 6, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and on December 14, 22 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion be denied. Defendants filed 23 timely objections on January 10, 2011. 24 Defendants object to the finding that Defendant Ojeda is not entitled to judgment as a matter 25 of law on the Eighth Amendment claim against her. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ojeda, a 26 correctional officer, asked two inmates to attack Plaintiff. Both immediately declined the request 27 and Plaintiff was not attacked. Defendants argue that a substantially serious risk of harm to Plaintiff 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 never existed given that the inmates immediately declined the request and Plaintiff’s claim fails 2 because he may not proceed on a “chance” of a risk. (Obj., 2:2-1.) 3 The Eighth Amendment clearly protects inmates from being intentionally endangered by 4 prison officials. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). When a correctional 5 officer invites two inmates to attack a third inmate, that action obviously endangers the would-be 6 victim’s safety, and the fact that the invitation was immediately declined does not shield the officer 7 from liability for soliciting the attack in the first place. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Thomas v. Ponder, 8 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 n.5 (9th Cir. 2010). Defendant Ojeda created a substantial risk of harm to 9 Plaintiff when she allegedly asked two inmates to attack him. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Thomas v. 10 Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 n.5 (9th Cir. 2010); Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. That no harm befell 11 Plaintiff does not defeat his claim, and Defendant Ojeda is not entitled to judgment as a matter of 12 law. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 14 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 15 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 16 ORDERED that: 17 1. 18 The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on December 14, 2010, in full; 19 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on July 6, 2010, is denied; and 20 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: 0m8i78 March 22, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

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.