(PC) Jones, Sr. v. Swarthout, et al., No. 2:2014cv01372 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/30/18 ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND E. JONES, SR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 CIV. NO. 2:14-1372 WBS DB(P) v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GARY SWARTHOUT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Raymond E. Jones, a prisoner proceeding pro 18 se, brought this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 B. Shubb and referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. 21 The matter was assigned to District Judge William On September 26, 2017, the magistrate judge issued 22 findings and recommendations in response to defendants’ Motion 23 for summary judgment. 24 recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice 25 to all parties that any objections to the findings and 26 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. 27 and defendants have both filed objections to the findings and 28 recommendations (Docket Nos. 26, 27), and the court now reviews (Docket No. 25.) 1 The findings and Plaintiff 1 them de novo. 2 72(b)(2)-(3). 3 I. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. Failure to Exhaust 4 The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s 5 deliberate indifference claim against defendants Blackwell, Long, 6 and Lahey should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 7 exhaust administrative remedies. 8 Defendants do not object to this recommendation, nor does 9 plaintiff. (Docket No. 25 at 8.) After a review of the file, the court finds the 10 findings and recommendations with regard to this claim to be 11 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 12 Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this 13 claim be dismissed without prejudice is adopted. 14 II. Excessive Force 15 Plaintiff alleges defendant Koelling used excessive 16 force when he (1) yanked plaintiff’s right arm and (2) when he 17 removed handcuffs from plaintiff. 18 19 A. Grabbing Arm To establish a claim for excessive force based on a 20 prison official’s use of force during a prison disturbance, the 21 plaintiff must show that the officer applied the force 22 maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good- 23 faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. 24 McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). 25 entire file, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s 26 conclusion, to which plaintiff objected, that the evidence here 27 is insufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that Koelling 28 used force on plaintiff maliciously and sadistically to harm Hudson v. After a careful review of the 2 1 plaintiff when he grabbed plaintiff’s arm. 2 court overrules plaintiff’s objection to this finding, adopts the 3 findings and recommendations as to this claim, and holds that 4 summary judgment on the issue of excessive force when Koelling 5 grabbed plaintiff’s arm should be granted in Koelling’s favor. 6 B. 7 Accordingly, the Removing Handcuffs As indicated by the magistrate judge, to establish 8 excessive force related to the use of handcuffs, a plaintiff must 9 show either a demonstrable injury or that he complained about the 10 use of force, in this case the tightness of the handcuffs and the 11 bending of plaintiff’s wrists, and that such complaints were 12 ignored. 13 2015 WL 2235674, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2015) (citing Dillman 14 v. Tuolumne County, Civ. No. 1:13-404 LJO SKO, 2013 WL 1907379, 15 at *8 (E.D. Cal. 2013)), rep. and reco. adopted, 2015 WL 3795667 16 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2015); Weldon v. Conlee, Civ. No. 1:13-540 17 LJO SAB, 2015 WL 1811882, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015), 18 aff’d, 684 F. App’x 612 (9th Cir. 2017); Gause v. Mullen, Civ. 19 No. 20 12, 2013); Nguyen v. San Diego Police Dept., Civ. No. 11-2594 WQH 21 NLS, 2013 WL 12114518, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013); Bashkin 22 v. San Diego County, Civ. No. 08-1450 WQH WVG, 2010 WL 2010853, 23 at *7 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2010); cf. LaLonde v. County of 24 Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2000); Palmer v. 25 Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1434-36 (9th Cir. 1993). 26 See Candler v. Mallot, Civ. No. 2:14-363 GEB KJN P, 12-1439 PHX RCB(MEA), 2013 WL 5163245, at *9 (D. Ariz. Sept. Here, plaintiff contends that he complained to Koelling 27 about his pain, but that Koelling continued to bend his wrists 28 and arms while applying and removing the handcuffs. 3 (Pl.’s Dep. 1 at 79-82.) 2 hands, wrists and arms only to the extent necessary to properly 3 apply and remove the handcuffs.” 4 2) ¶ 5.) 5 an issue of material fact as to whether Koelling removed the 6 handcuffs in a reasonable fashion or whether he acted 7 maliciously, and thus that summary judgment is inappropriate with 8 regard to this claim. 9 finding that Koelling has not met the standard for summary Koelling argues that he “manipulated [plaintiff’s] (Koelling Decl. (Docket No. 19- From this, the magistrate judge concluded that there is The court adopts the magistrate judge’s 10 judgement with respect to this allegation of excessive force, 11 overrules defendants’ objection as to this claim, and concludes 12 that summary judgment is inappropriate as to this claim. 13 14 15 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 27, 2017, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Koelling for 17 grabbing his arm is dismissed with prejudice; 18 3. Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against 19 Blackwell, Long, and Lahey is dismissed without prejudice 20 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and 21 4. This case is to proceed on plaintiff’s excessive force 22 claim against Koelling for the removal of plaintiff’s 23 handcuffs. 24 Dated: January 30, 2018 25 26 27 28 4

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.