Jackson v. Mendenhall

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF 24, 26, )

         Plaintiff Curtis Jackson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).^[1]

         Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed September 3, 2015. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff has opposed the motion. (ECF No. 26.) Along with his motion, Defendant served Plaintiff with the notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

         I.

         RELEVANT HISTORY

         This action proceeds on the original complaint filed on October 17, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, brings this action against Defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) Mendenhall, an employee of the CDCR at Pleasant Valley State Prison, where the incident at issue occurred. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Mendenhall subjected him to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         Plaintiff is a paraplegic, wheelchair bound inmate. Plaintiff alleges that on January 28, 2013, Defendant Mendenhall, without provocation, subjected him to excessive force. Plaintiff alleges that he and Mendenhall were engaged in a verbal altercation, and that Mendenhall was out of control. Plaintiff alleges that Mendenhall grabbed the right handle of Plaintiff's wheelchair, and “snatched it backwards with such intense force, Plaintiff fell forward at which time Plaintiff grabed [sic] the frame of his wheelchair to keep from falling on to the concrete ground.” (ECF No. 1, ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that his torso went from a bent forward position to an upright position so quickly that he suffered injury.

         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) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 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) (quotation marks omitted). 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); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

         In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), 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) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

         In arriving at its conclusion, the Court carefully reviewed and considered all arguments, points and authorities, declarations, exhibits, statements of undisputed facts and responses thereto, if any, objections, and other papers filed by the parties. Omission of reference to an argument, document, paper, or objection is not to be construed to the effect that this Court did not consider the argument, document, paper, or objection. This Court thoroughly reviewed and considered the evidence it deemed admissible, material, and appropriate.

         III.

         DISCUSSION

         A. ...