United States District Court, E.D. California
CURTIS R. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
D. MENDENHALL, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF 24, 26, )
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).
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).
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.
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
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
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).
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,