Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barrales v. Crump

United States District Court, C.D. California, Eastern Division

January 16, 2015

RAFAEL BARRALES, Plaintiff,
v.
A. CRUMP et al., Defendants

Rafael Barrales, Plaintiff, Pro se, San Diego, CA.

For A. Crump, Correctional Officer, Defendant: Edgar R Nield, Gabrielle DeSantis-Nield, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Maltzman and Partners PA, Encinitas, CA.

For D. Spears, Correctional Officer, Defendant: Janine K Jeffery, LEAD ATTORNEY, Reily and Jeffery, Northridge, CA; Andrew M Gibson, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK, United States Magistrate Judge.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff Rafael Barrales, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1 (" Complaint"). The Complaint names two Defendants, A. Crump and D. Spears, who at the time of the underlying events were employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (" CDCR") as correctional officers at Ironwood State Prison (" ISP"). Id. at 2.[1] Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by Defendants' use of excessive force.[2] Id. at 3. Defendants are sued in both their individual and official capacities. Id. at 2.

On May 22, 2014, Spears filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).[3] Dkt. 19 (" Motion"). Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Spears's Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.

B. Allegations of the Complaint

On December 14, 2012, Crump approached Plaintiff and instructed him to return to his assigned housing cell. Complaint at 3. Plaintiff told Crump that it was his section of the dayroom that was out. Id. Crump replied that he " did not give a damn" and began using profanity and aggressive language. Id. Crump then took out his pepper spray and instructed the control booth officer to " clean the 'A' section dayroom." Id. Crump then told Plaintiff to " cuff up, " to which Plaintiff replied that he could not be handcuffed behind his back because he had recently had surgery on his left shoulder rotator cuff. Id. Plaintiff told Crump that he had a medical chrono stating that he could not be handcuffed behind his back. Id.

Crump and Spears then forced Plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him behind his back, despite Plaintiff repeatedly telling them about his injured shoulder. Id. Defendants told Plaintiff that he was " faking it" and attempted to lift him up by his wrists, which caused Plaintiff to yell and cry that Defendants were hurting him. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions were not performed in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline but were done maliciously in order to cause pain. Id.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $100, 000, punitive damages of $50, 000, and an injunction preventing Defendants from retaliating against Plaintiff for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.