(PC) Crane v. Yates et al, No. 1:2010cv02373 - Document 57 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS To Deny Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docs. 31 , 54 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/14/2012. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF

(PC) Crane v. Yates et al Doc. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JAMES CRANE, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02373-LJO-GBC (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11 v. 12 JAMES A. YATES, et al., 13 Docs. 31, 54 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 I. Procedural History 17 On December 21, 2010, Plaintiff James Crane (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro 18 se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 19 Defendant Aguirre (“Defendant”) dumped Plaintiff out of his wheelchair. Doc. 1. On July 6, 2011, 20 Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claim against Defendant 21 for Eighth Amendment excessive force. Docs. 11, 12. 22 On August 9, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contemporaneously 23 with a notice as to how Plaintiff must oppose the motion in order to avoid dismissal, pursuant to 24 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) and Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 25 2012). Doc. 31. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, Declaration, Statement of 26 Undisputed Facts, and Statement of Disputed Facts. Docs. 37-40. On September 13, 2012, Plaintiff 27 filed a motion to file a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment concurrently 28 with filing his Supplemental Opposition. Doc. 42. On September 17, 2012, Defendant filed a Reply Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to Plaintiff’s Original Opposition. Doc. 44. On October 1, 2012, Defendant filed a statement of non- 2 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental opposition concurrently with filing a 3 Supplemental Reply. Docs. 47, 48. On October 4, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file 4 a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 52. 5 On October 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 6 recommending to deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as Plaintiff presented a genuine 7 dispute of material fact for trial. Doc. 54. On November 13, 2012, Defendant filed Objections. Doc. 8 55. On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Doc. 56. 9 II. Analysis 10 In Defendant’s objections, he argues that Plaintiff recanted his allegations during his inmate 11 appeal, which makes Plaintiff’s declaration self-serving. Def. Obj. at 3, Doc. 55. However, 12 Defendant does not present anything signed by Plaintiff stating that he recanted his allegations, only 13 the written report completed by the officer. Moreover, Defendant no longer has possession of the 14 videotape of the incident, which apparently prompted Plaintiff to recant his allegations. Thus, this 15 Court cannot simply accept Defendant’s declaration, without any signed document from Plaintiff 16 demonstrating he recanted, in addition to a lost videotape. 17 Defendant also argues that Plaintiff, at the most, only established de minimis force. Def. Obj. 18 at 3, Doc. 55. Plaintiff’s declaration states that on September 3, 2009, Defendant Aguirre dumped 19 Plaintiff from his wheelchair and struck him with it. Pl. Decl., Doc. 38. Plaintiff did not make any 20 allegations as to the extent of his injuries, if any, or present any medical records to this Court. In 21 Defendant’s reply, he submitted medical records from Plaintiff for June 2009 through October 2009. 22 The records mostly discuss complaints of valley fever and make no reference to any alleged incident 23 from September 3, 2009. See Def. Reply Ex. A. at 7-11, Doc. 44. Notwithstanding an apparent 24 absence in injury, in Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) the Supreme Court rejected the 25 notion that “significant injury” is a threshold requirement for stating an excessive force claim. The 26 “core judicial inquiry,” was not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather 27 “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and 28 sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1177 Page 2 of 3 1 (2010) (per curiam); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319-321 (1986). 2 3 Based on Plaintiff’s declaration in opposition to the motion for summary judgment alleging excessive force, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact for trial. 4 III. Conclusion 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 6 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 7 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 22, 2012, are ADOPTED, in full; and 11 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 9, 2012, is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: b9ed48 December 14, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 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.