United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding with claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Barnes, Hood and Sisson (defendants), employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment.
I. Plaintiff's Allegations
In his first amended complaint, which is signed under the penalty of perjury, plaintiff alleges as follows:
1. On August 12, 2011, at approximately 6:45 a.m., plaintiff was placed in a holding cage approximately 4 feet wide and 6 or 7 inches deep pursuant to an order given by defendant Sisson and pending plaintiff's being placed in administrative segregation for failing to relinquish handcuffs when ordered to do so. Plaintiff was forced to remain in the cage for approximately 14 hours.
2. Plaintiff was not given any food or water while in the holding cage, nor was he permitted to go to the bathroom.
3. There was no stool provided so plaintiff had to stand.
4. At approximately 4:45 p.m., plaintiff asked defendant Barnes why he was being denied an evening meal. Defendant Barnes did not respond. Plaintiff began to feel light headed from standing all day and not eating.
5. Plaintiff then asked defendant Barnes to summon medical staff. Barnes did not do so.
6. At some point, plaintiff was restrained to the upper food port in his holding cage with a "triangle device" making it impossible for plaintiff to move. Plaintiff suffered numbness for four hours as a result.
7. On or about November 16, 2011, defendant Hood threw plaintiff's food tray to the floor of plaintiff's cell. Hood also denied plaintiff bedding, toilet paper, a tooth brush and toothpaste for approximately 4 days.
8. Plaintiff tried to obtain these items from other staff members who informed plaintiff the items would not be given to him because plaintiff was on defendant Hood's "shit list."
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there "is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made ...