(PC) Bouie v. Smith

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIRK JA’ONG BOUIE, JR., No. 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 14 OSCAR SMITH, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 88, 93) 16 17 Plaintiff Dirk Ja'ong Bouie, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 88) be granted 22 because: (i) Defendants Smith and Rossi’s conduct in briefly delaying Plaintiff’s access to mental 23 health treatment following an altercation was not harmful to Plaintiff and thus not deliberately 24 indifferent to his serious medical needs; (ii) Defendant Harwood’s conduct in not providing 25 Plaintiff treatment or medication does not constitute deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious 26 medical needs because the injuries he sustained in the altercation were minor and “did not rise to 27 the level of an objectively serious medical need or present an excessive risk to his health and 28 safety,” and just two days after the altercation, a nurse provided Plaintiff with pain medication, 1 ointment, and bandages for his “very minor/superficial abrasions;” (iii) Defendant Smith’s brief 2 use of force to subdue Plaintiff during the altercation was reasonable; and (iv) Defendant Rossi 3 did not, therefore, fail to protect Plaintiff from an application of excessive force. (Doc. No. 93 at 4 23–32.) 5 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 6 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. 7 at 33.) After receiving an extension of time in which to do so, on August 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed 8 objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 96.) On September 13, 2024, 9 Defendants filed a response thereto. (Doc. No. 97.) 10 In his objections, Plaintiff primarily restates the findings and recommendations and 11 repeats the arguments he had presented in his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 12 judgment—arguments that were already considered and properly rejected in the pending findings 13 and recommendations. (Doc. No. 96.) For example, in his objections, Plaintiff maintains that his 14 injuries were “major,” not minor as Defendant Harwood described in her notes. (Id. at 18–19.) 15 But as the magistrate judge explained in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff does not 16 point to any inaccuracy in Defendant Harwood’s description of his injuries (“pain to Plaintiff’s 17 right jaw area and abrasions/scratches to the area above Plaintiff’s right eye, both wrists, both 18 knees, and behind his left ear”) other than his belief that “the injury on his eyebrow should have 19 been marked as a cut rather than as a scratch or abrasion;” though, “he acknowledged that it did 20 not require stitches.” (Doc. No. 93 at 16, 25.) Moreover, in his objections, Plaintiff does not 21 address the legal authorities cited in the findings and recommendations to support the proposition 22 that “minor scrapes and cuts that do not require stitches or medicine are not serious medical needs 23 that implicate the constitution.” (Id. at 26–27) (quoting Lipsey v. Samniego, No. 1:17-cv-1703- 24 LJO-JDP, 2019 WL 1431591, at *4; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54544, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 25 2019)). Further, the court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument in his objections that his minor 26 scrapes and cuts should be deemed “major” injuries merely because there is a risk that such cuts 27 could become infected. (See Doc. No. 96 at 18–19.) As the magistrate judge correctly noted in 28 addressing this same argument in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has not presented 1 any evidence that the two-day delay in receiving ointment and bandages actually resulted in 2 further injury, as is required to prevail on a deliberate indifference claim. (Doc. No. 93 at 27.) 3 Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations as to Defendants Smith and 4 Rossi are similarly unavailing because Plaintiff’s arguments have already been thoroughly and 5 correctly addressed by the magistrate judge. In addition, Plaintiff misunderstands the findings and 6 recommendations as concluding that he is barred from asserting that Defendant Smith used 7 excessive force in reaction to Plaintiff’s battery of Defendants Smith and Rossi, on the ground 8 that Plaintiff was subsequently convicted in state superior court of two counts of battery based on 9 his conduct during the altercation. (See Doc. No. 96 at 12–15.) But that is not what the magistrate 10 judge concluded. Rather, the magistrate judge explained that Plaintiff’s excessive force and 11 failure to protect claims are barred “only in so far as they are based on a theory that he did not 12 batter Defendants”—those claims are not barred to the extent they “are premised on a theory that 13 [Defendant] Smith responded to the battery with excessive force and [Defendant] Rossi failed to 14 intervene.” (Doc. No. 93 at 23.) The magistrate judge then thoroughly analyzed whether 15 Defendant Smith responded with excessive force and correctly concluded based on the evidence 16 before the court on summary judgment that he had not used excessive force during the altercation. 17 (Id. at 27–32.) 18 In sum, Plaintiff’s objections simply do not provide a basis upon which to reject the 19 findings and recommendations. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 21 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 22 including Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ response thereto, the court concludes that the 23 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 24 Accordingly: 25 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 18, 2024 (Doc. No. 93) are 26 adopted in full; 27 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 88) is granted; 28 3. To the extent Plaintiff in his objections to the findings and recommendations 1 concurrently requested reconsideration of certain discovery rulings made by the 2 magistrate judge in the June 18, 2024 order, those requests for reconsideration are 3 denied as moot in light of this order; 4 4. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants; and 5 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ g | Dated: _ December 3, 2024 EQ | os Dena Coggins 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28