Jeremy White v. Ironwood State Prison

C.D. California

Jeremy White v. Ironwood State Prison

DecidedSeptember 5, 2023

Docket2:20-cv-02738

StatusUnknown

This text of Jeremy White v. Ironwood State Prison (Jeremy White v. Ironwood State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jeremy White v. Ironwood State Prison, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY WHITE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02738-FMO (SHK)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 IRONWOOD STATE PRISON, et JUDGE al., 15 16 Defendants. 17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 19 Complaint, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the records on file, and the 20 Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge. 21 Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 22 to which objections have been made. 23 The Report recommends the grant of summary judgment in favor of the sole 24 remaining Defendant, a prison guard, because Plaintiff, an inmate, raised no 25 genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant used excessive force in 26 breaking up a physical altercation between Plaintiff and another inmate. (ECF No. 27 85.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report do not warrant a 28 change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. 1 Plaintiff objects that he was “struck multiple times by the Defendant” while 2 Plaintiff was “offering no resistance whatsoever and complying with [Defendant’s] 3 orders.” (ECF No. 87 at 2.) But as the Report noted, even though this allegation is 4 accepted as true, it did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact. (ECF No. 85 at 5 12.) Even though Plaintiff did not resist Defendant, it nonetheless is undisputed 6 that Plaintiff was engaged in an altercation with another inmate immediately before 7 force was used, which gave rise to the apparent emergency. (ECF No. 12 at 5; ECF 8 No. 79-3 at 21-24.) As the Report found, a prison guard’s use of force to stop an 9 altercation between inmates does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 10 (ECF No. 85 at 18-20.) 11 Plaintiff objects that “at no time was [he] combative.” (ECF No. 87 at 2.) 12 This allegation, however, contradicts Plaintiff’s prior admissions, including his 13 sworn testimony, that he was engaged in an altercation with another inmate when 14 Defendant used force. (ECF No. 79-3 at 21-24.) Therefore, this objection does not 15 raise a genuine dispute of material fact. See United States v. 1980 Red Ferrari, 827 16 F.2d 477, 480 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that self-contradictory testimony created 17 no genuine dispute of material fact). 18 Plaintiff objects that he sustained serious injuries and continuing medical 19 problems from the incident. (ECF No. 87 at 2-3.) But the Report acknowledged 20 that Plaintiff “suffered fairly serious injuries from Defendant’s use of force.” (ECF 21 No. 85 at 21.) This did not mean that Defendant’s use of force was 22 unconstitutional. (Id.) “[A]n officer who harms an inmate as part of a good faith 23 effort to maintain security has acted constitutionally[.]” Hoard v. Hartman, 904 24 F.3d 780, 788 (9th Cir. 2018); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 912 (9th Cir. 2001) 25 (recognizing “that a prison guard is permitted to use deadly force ‘in a good faith 26 effort to maintain or restore discipline’” (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 27 320 (1986)); see also Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (“The ‘core judicial 28 inquiry,’ . . . [is] not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather 1 ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 2 maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’”) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 3 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). 4 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 5 Judge is accepted and adopted; (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 6 (ECF No. 79) is granted; and (3) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action 7 with prejudice. 8 9 DATED: September 5, 2023 10 11 ______________/s/___________________ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY WHITE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02738-FMO (SHK)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 IRONWOOD STATE PRISON, et JUDGE al., 15 16 Defendants. 17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 19 Complaint, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the records on file, and the 20 Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge. 21 Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 22 to which objections have been made. 23 The Report recommends the grant of summary judgment in favor of the sole 24 remaining Defendant, a prison guard, because Plaintiff, an inmate, raised no 25 genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant used excessive force in 26 breaking up a physical altercation between Plaintiff and another inmate. (ECF No. 27 85.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report do not warrant a 28 change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. 1 Plaintiff objects that he was “struck multiple times by the Defendant” while 2 Plaintiff was “offering no resistance whatsoever and complying with [Defendant’s] 3 orders.” (ECF No. 87 at 2.) But as the Report noted, even though this allegation is 4 accepted as true, it did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact. (ECF No. 85 at 5 12.) Even though Plaintiff did not resist Defendant, it nonetheless is undisputed 6 that Plaintiff was engaged in an altercation with another inmate immediately before 7 force was used, which gave rise to the apparent emergency. (ECF No. 12 at 5; ECF 8 No. 79-3 at 21-24.) As the Report found, a prison guard’s use of force to stop an 9 altercation between inmates does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 10 (ECF No. 85 at 18-20.) 11 Plaintiff objects that “at no time was [he] combative.” (ECF No. 87 at 2.) 12 This allegation, however, contradicts Plaintiff’s prior admissions, including his 13 sworn testimony, that he was engaged in an altercation with another inmate when 14 Defendant used force. (ECF No. 79-3 at 21-24.) Therefore, this objection does not 15 raise a genuine dispute of material fact. See United States v. 1980 Red Ferrari, 827 16 F.2d 477, 480 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that self-contradictory testimony created 17 no genuine dispute of material fact). 18 Plaintiff objects that he sustained serious injuries and continuing medical 19 problems from the incident. (ECF No. 87 at 2-3.) But the Report acknowledged 20 that Plaintiff “suffered fairly serious injuries from Defendant’s use of force.” (ECF 21 No. 85 at 21.) This did not mean that Defendant’s use of force was 22 unconstitutional. (Id.) “[A]n officer who harms an inmate as part of a good faith 23 effort to maintain security has acted constitutionally[.]” Hoard v. Hartman, 904 24 F.3d 780, 788 (9th Cir. 2018); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 912 (9th Cir. 2001) 25 (recognizing “that a prison guard is permitted to use deadly force ‘in a good faith 26 effort to maintain or restore discipline’” (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 27 320 (1986)); see also Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (“The ‘core judicial 28 inquiry,’ . . . [is] not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather 1 ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 2 maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’”) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 3 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). 4 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 5 Judge is accepted and adopted; (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 6 (ECF No. 79) is granted; and (3) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action 7 with prejudice. 8 9 DATED: September 5, 2023 10 11 ______________/s/___________________ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jeremy White v. Ironwood State Prison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremy-white-v-ironwood-state-prison-cacd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack