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.

Garland v. Stanley

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 30, 2015

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, Plaintiff,
v.
C. STANLEY, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 25)

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants Lindsey, Nickell, Stanley, and Doe on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (ECF Nos. 6 & 8.) Defendants Lindsey, Nickell, and Stanley were served and have appeared in the action. (ECF Nos. 12 & 15.) Defendant Doe has not been identified.

On August 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25.). Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 5, 2015 (ECF No. 42). Defendants filed a reply on March 19, 2015. (ECF No. 46.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 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); Wash. Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, he must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants do not bear the burden of proof at trial and, in moving for summary judgment, they need only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff's case. In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010).

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court may not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984, and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). However, "conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment." Angle v. Miller, 673 F.3d 1122, 1134 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984).

III. FACTUAL SUMMARY

The Court finds that the following facts are undisputed:

On October 27, 2010, Plaintiff was transported from Calipatria State Prison to CCI Tehachapi. (ECF No. 25-2, at 1.)

Plaintiff was given a "sack lunch" at 7:30 am and the bus left at around 8:05 am.

At some point during the bus ride, Plaintiff realized he had diarrhea. (ECF No. 25-2, at 2.)

Plaintiff attempted to use the bus bathroom. (ECF No. 25-2, at 2.)

Plaintiff wore handcuffs, waist chains, and leg irons on the bus. (ECF No. 25-2, at 2.)

Upon arrival at CCI Tehachapi at around 6:00 pm, Plaintiff's leg irons were removed and he and roughly ten other inmates were led into the facility, a process that took between 30-45 minutes. He was then placed in an individual holding "cage" to await a strip search. (ECF No. 25-2, at 3.)

As part of the strip search, Plaintiff had to "squat and cough." (ECF No. 25-2, at 3.)

Plaintiff did not defecate when he went through this stage of the strip search. (ECF No. 25-2, at 3.)

Plaintiff told Officer Nickell he needed to use the bathroom as soon as possible. (ECF No. 25-2, at 4). Officer ...


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.