(PC) Savary v. Towle ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEFFIER SAVARY, No. 1:18-cv-01305-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 T. TOWLE and A. JAIME, (Doc. No. 52) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Keffier Savary is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case proceeds 20 on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants T. Towle and A. Jaime for excessive 21 use of force and failure to protect. (Doc. Nos. 1, 13.) 22 On April 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 47) be granted.1 (Doc. 24 No. 52.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the undisputed evidence before the court on 25 summary judgment established that: (1) defendant Towle justifiably pepper-sprayed plaintiff and 26 1 Defendants filed a separate motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to 27 properly exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required and that this action is time barred. (Doc. No. 36.) That motion will be denied as having been rendered moot by the 28 issuance of this order. 1 therefore did not use excessive force in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights; and 2 (2) because defendant Towle did not use excessive force, defendant Jaime did not fail to protect 3 plaintiff from that alleged use of excessive force in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 4 rights. (Id. 4–8.) On May 13, 2020, plaintiff timely filed his objections to the findings and 5 recommendations. (Doc. No. 53.) 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 8 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 9 by proper analysis. 10 Plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings that the 11 undisputed evidence before the court on summary judgment establishes that defendants are 12 entitled to summary judgment in their favor with respect to his Eighth Amendment claim for 13 excessive force against defendant Towle and his failure to protect against defendant Jaime. In his 14 objections, plaintiff merely reiterates the same arguments the magistrate judge rejected as 15 unsupported by the evidence in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 53 at 1–6.) 16 Although plaintiff argues that he presented no physical threat to defendants and that defendant 17 Towle could have used other methods to get him to comply with defendants’ orders, plaintiff does 18 not dispute, and in fact conceded in his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 19 that: defendants came to his cell believing he might be in possession of an illegal cellphone; he 20 was in fact in possession of that cellphone; when ordered by defendant Towle to exit their cell, 21 plaintiff’s cellmate complied, but plaintiff did not, instead turning his back to defendants; 22 thereafter plaintiff put his hands into his crotch area and started to bend the cellphone and break it 23 with his hand and leg; and only after plaintiff had not complied with defendants’ order and 24 instead turned his back on correctional staff and reached into his pants did defendant Towle 25 pepper-spray plaintiff. (Doc. No. 52 at 4–5; see also Doc. No. 50.) Given this undisputed 26 evidence, defendant Towle was justified as a matter of law in deploying pepper-spray on 27 plaintiff. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992) (“[W]e hold that whenever prison 28 officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual 4.40 UV VEIN MAR SOMO Se POO ee OY VV VI 1 | Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is ...: whether force was applied in a good-faith 2 | effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.); see also 3 | White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1507 (9th Cir. 1990) (“White does not dispute that he refused to 4 | enter Shaw’s cell and backed away from Sergeant Roper, moving down the cell block corridor. . .. 5 | [H]is actions created a need for Sergeant Roper and the deputies to apply reasonable force to 6 | control him.”); Lamon vy. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SM, 2015 WL 1636925, at *4 (E.D. 7 | Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) (“[A] short burst of pepper spray is not disproportionate to the need to control 8 || an inmate who has failed to obey a jailer’s order.”). 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 52) are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 47) is granted; 13 3. Defendant’s earlier filed motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 36) is denied as 14 having been rendered moot by the issuance of this order; 15 4. Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants; and 16 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ June 11, 2020 Yi A Dra 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28