United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECFNOS. 56,
Angel Luis Gallardo is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
before the Court is Defendants Reyes and Martin's motion
for summary judgment, filed February 28, 2019, and Defendant
Garcia's motion for summary judgment, filed March 5,
action is proceeding against Defendants M. Garcia, J. Reyes,
and D. Martin for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need and intention infliction of emotional
November 27, 2017, Defendants Martin and Reyes filed an
answer to the operative complaint. On November 29, 2017,
Defendant Garcia filed an answer to the operative complaint.
December 5, 2017, the Court issued the discovery and
18, 2018, after an unsuccessful settlement conference, the
Court issued an amended discovery and scheduling order.
previously stated, on February 28, 2019, Defendants Reyes and
Martin filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 5, 2019,
Defendant Garcia filed a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to both motions on June 24,
2019, and Defendants filed a reply on June 27,
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, 509 F.3d at 984 (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 at 942 (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Summary of Plaintiffs Complaint
November 13, 2015, while housed at the California Substance
Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran,
California, Plaintiff and his cellmate were sprayed with
pepper spray by M. Garcia ("Garcia"), Correctional
Officers J. Reyes, and D. Martin due to an in cell incident.
The officers then took Plaintiff and his cellmate to the
showers to be decontaminated. After decontamination, Sergeant
Garcia told Correctional Officers Martin and Reyes to place
Plaintiff back in his original cell.
told Sergeant Garcia and Officer Reyes that he could not go
back to his cell as he suffers from asthma. Nurse Bracamonte
came by and Plaintiff had him clearly explain his medical
condition to Sergeant Garcia, and Correctional Officers
Martin and Reyes. Even after Nurse Bracamonte's
explanation, Sergeant Garcia ordered Correctional Officers
Reyes and Martin to place Plaintiff back in his cell.
about fifteen minutes, Plaintiff was having trouble breathing
and began wheezing. Defendants told Plaintiff he would be ok
since he has a rescue inhaler in the cell. It was then
Plaintiff informed Defendants the rescue inhaler was not in
the cell. This prompted the Defendants to begin looking for
the inhaler. In the meantime, Nurse Bracamonte arrived at
Plaintiffs cell and informed Plaintiff he spoke with Sergeant
Garcia on his behalf asking for Plaintiff to be removed from
the cell, nevertheless Plaintiff was still not allowed out of
Statement of Undisputed Facts
all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an inmate in
the custody of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) housed at the California Substance
Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) in Corcoran, California.
(Second Am. Compl, ECF No. 17 at 3.)
November 13, 2015, Plaintiff and his cellmate engaged in a
fight inside their cell. (Deposition of Plaintiff
("Dep.") at 23:1-3, Ex. A to Declaration of Lucas
end the fight, correctional officers used pepper spray on
Plaintiff and his cellmate. (ECF No. 17 at 3, Dep. at
Plaintiff and his cellmate did not comply with orders to stop
fighting until three cans of pepper spray had been disbursed
into his cell. (Dep. at 28:6-15.)
After Plaintiff and his cellmate complied with orders to stop
fighting and submitted to handcuffs, Defendants Garcia and
Reyes took Plaintiff to the showers to be ...