(PC) Locklear v. Schwiner et al, No. 2:2009cv02594 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 06/06/11 recommending that defendants' 11/18/10 motion for summary judgment be granted; and judgment be entered in this action in accordance with any order of the district court adopting these findings and recommendations and the 10/20/10 order of the district court dismissing defendant Clay. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 37 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Locklear v. Schwiner et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLIFFORD LOCKLEAR, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:09-cv-2594-MCE-JFM (PC) vs. DR. SCHWINER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants Correctional Officer Solorzano and 18 Correctional Sergeant Orrick violated his constitutional rights by having plaintiff removed from 19 his job under false pretenses and acted intentionally to exacerbate plaintiff’s mental illness so 20 that he would hurt himself or others. This matter is before the court on the motion for defendants 21 Orrick and Solorzano for summary judgment.1 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 25 26 1 A third defendant, Sergeant Clay, was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his claim against said defendant prior to suit. See Findings and Recommendations filed September 14, 2010; Order filed October 20, 2010. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS UNDER RULE 56 Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists “no 3 genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 4 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 5 Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 6 8 always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 9 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “[W]here the 7 10 nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary 11 judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers 12 to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’” Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, 13 after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing 14 sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that 15 party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof 16 concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts 17 immaterial.” Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as 18 whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary 19 judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323. 20 If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the 21 opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See 22 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to 23 establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the 24 allegations or denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the 25 form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the 26 dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party 2 1 must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome 2 of the suit under the governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 3 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 4 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could 5 return a verdict for the nonmoving party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 6 1436 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party 8 need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the 9 claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing 10 versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary 11 judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a 12 genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory 13 committee’s note on 1963 amendments). 14 In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings, 15 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if 16 any. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed. See Anderson, 17 477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the 18 court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 19 Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to 20 produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen 21 Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 22 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply 23 show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken 24 as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 25 ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted). 26 ///// 3 1 On November 24, 2009, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for 2 opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. 3 Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and 4 Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 6 7 8 9 10 ANALYSIS I. Facts Plaintiff’s complaint, filed September 16, 2009, contains the following allegations against defendants Solorzano and Orrick: C/O Solorzano and Sgt. Orrick had me removed from my job under false pretenses, and for 2 days told nothing because they knew I was a mental pateint [sic]. No classification and know [sic] appropriate reson [sic].... 11 12 13 C/O Solorzano, Supv. Third Watch, did everything possible to hurt me, I was removed from my job and assignment. Him and Sgt. Orrick knew just what to do to have me blow up and hurt myself and others, so when they heart that I cut my wrists they had completed the mission.... 14 15 Complaint, filed September 16, 2009, at 3-4. 16 An inmate grievance submitted by plaintiff to prison officials on January 15, 2009 17 demonstrates that the claims at bar arose from events on December 15 or 16, 2008, when plaintiff 18 was told to pack his property for a move from Building #8 to Building #11 at California State 19 Prison-Solano (CSP-Solano). At the time, plaintiff was working as a porter in Building 8. 20 In support of their motion, defendants have presented evidence that plaintiff was 21 moved from Building #8 because of a cell door retrofit that was occurring in his building. See 22 Declaration of C. Ferguson in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed 23 November 18, 2010, at ¶ 3. Lt. Ferguson also avers that plaintiff was not removed from his 24 porter assignment in Building #8 even after he was moved to another building. Id. Documents 25 appended to the Ferguson Declaration show that plaintiff held the lead porter position in Building 26 8 from December 18, 2004 through December 23, 2008. See California State Prison-Solano, 4 1 Inmate Job Assignment, Inmate Assignment History, included in Ex. A to Ferguson Declaration. 2 Defendants have also presented evidence that neither of them had any authority to remove an 3 inmate from a job assignment, and that neither of them had plaintiff removed from his porter 4 position. See Declaration of Cheryl Orrick in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 5 Judgment, filed November 18, 2010 (Orrick Declaration), at ¶¶ 4,5; Declaration of Aaron 6 Solorzano in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 18, 2010 7 (Solorzano Declaration), at ¶¶ 3,4. Finally, defendants have presented evidence that neither of 8 them had or have “any knowledge concerning [plaintiff]’s mental health status.” Orrick 9 Declaration at ¶ 6; Solorzano Declaration at ¶ 5. 10 Although plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion, he has not presented any evidence 11 with that opposition. Plaintiff’s complaint is signed under penalty of perjury and “may be 12 considered as an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment if it is based on personal 13 knowledge and sets forth specific facts admissible in evidence.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 14 1132 n.14 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 II. Defendants’ Motion 16 Defendants seek summary judgment on the grounds that (1) they did not deprive 17 plaintiff of any constitutional right; and (2) there is no evidence that they were deliberately 18 indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff. In support of their motion, defendants 19 contend that plaintiff has no constitutional right to a job while in prison and, in any event, that 20 neither of them had any authority to remove plaintiff from his porter job and that plaintiff was 21 not removed from his porter job following his move from Building #8. Defendants also contend 22 that they had no knowledge of plaintiff’s mental health status and therefore would not have 23 known about possible impacts on plaintiff’s mental health from the events at bar. 24 The evidence tendered by defendants in support of their motion for summary 25 judgment establishes that (1) plaintiff was moved from Building #8 due to a cell door retrofit 26 project; (2) plaintiff remained in his porter job for at least twelve days following the move; (3) 5 1 neither defendant had any authority to, nor did, remove plaintiff from his porter job; and (4) 2 neither defendant had knowledge of plaintiff’s mental health status or possible impacts of a 3 building move on plaintiff’s mental health. The averments of plaintiff’s complaint are 4 insufficient to create a triable issue of material fact with respect to any of the foregoing facts. 5 Accordingly, this court finds that there is no evidence to support either of plaintiff’s claims. For 6 that reason, defendants are entitled to summary judgment. 7 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Defendants’ November 18, 2010 motion for summary judgment be granted; 9 and 10 2. Judgment be entered in this action in accordance with any order of the district 11 court adopting these findings and recommendations and the October 20, 2010 order of the district 12 court dismissing defendant Clay. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 15 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 18 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 19 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 20 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 DATED: June 6, 2011. 22 23 24 25 12;lock2594.msj 26 6
]]>
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.
