(PC) Shaheed v. Sherman ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KARRIEM SHAHEED, Case No. 1:20-cv-01450-ADA-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 12 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 S. SHERMAN, et al., (ECF Nos. 28, 40) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Karriem Shaheed (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 25, 2022, the assigned United States Magistrate Judge issued findings and 20 recommendations recommending Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to 21 exhaust the administrative remedies be denied and the motion for summary judgment on the 22 merits be granted. (ECF No. 40.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties 23 and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after 24 service. (Id. at 18.) After receiving two extensions of time, Plaintiff filed objections on 25 November 3, 2022, and Defendants filed a response on November 17, 2022. (ECF Nos. 45, 46.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ response, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 2 To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials were 3 deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to her health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 4 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). A deliberate indifference claim has both a subjective and an objective 5 element. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993). A prison official’s mere negligence is 6 not sufficient establish liability. Rather, the official’s conduct must have been wanton. Farmer, 7 511 U.S. at 83. To meet the objective element of the deliberate indifference standard, Plaintiff 8 must demonstrate the existence of a serious risk to his health or safety. Helling, 509 U.S. at 35. 9 To meet the subjective element, Plaintiff must show that the official knew of and disregarded the 10 substantial risk of harm. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 In judging the evidence before the Court, no genuine issue of material fact precludes 12 entry of judgment in favor of Defendants. The Court finds that there was a serious risk to 13 Plaintiff’s health or safety while housed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State 14 Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”). However, the Court finds that upon notice of the risk, Defendants 15 addressed such substantial risk of harm. 16 In his objections, Plaintiff argues the Court may infer from the evidence that a mere 17 fifteen samples of mold tested over a three-year period falls significantly short of reasonable. 18 (ECF No. 45 at 7.) Plaintiff attaches test results of mold samples in different areas of SATF. 19 (Id. at 40-87.) However, the results do not demonstrate a growth or decline of the mold presence 20 at SATF throughout the pertinent time period. As a result, the evidence does not support that 21 Defendants were unreasonable in their efforts to mitigate the mold in SATF. In fact, SATF 22 officials have taken reasonable steps in repairing and maintaining the buildings infested with any 23 black mold. (ECF No. 40 at 16.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendants failed to demonstrate 24 that the measures taken were sufficient to prevent or remove mold. (ECF No. 45 at 9.) 25 However, as the Magistrate Judge had reasoned, simply because a plaintiff disagrees with the 26 method of repairs and maintenance does not mean that Defendants acted recklessly or wantonly 27 with respect to the plaintiff’s health and safety. See Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1068 1 | made reasonable measures to mitigate the black mold during the relevant time period. 2 | Defendants did not disregard the risk to Plaintiff's health and safety. Overall, the evidence 3 | demonstrates that Defendants’ implemented measures to mitigate such risk, defeating Plaintiffs 4 | deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth Amendment. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 25, 2022 (ECF No. 40), are 7 ADOPTED in full; 8 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative 9 remedies is DENIED; 10 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiffs claim is 11 GRANTED; and 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 13 14 15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: _ December 21, 2022 UNITED £TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28