(PC) Haynes v. Contreas

Opinion

RAYSHAWN HAYNES, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00536 JLT EPG ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF F. CONTREAS, et al., ) COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE ) Defendants. ) (Docs. 34, 40) )

Rayshawn Haynes seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while he was incarcerated at California State Prison-Wasco. Plaintiff alleges he passed out in the shower, officers then used excessive force on him, and he was given medical treatment he did not want. (See generally Doc. 1.) Defendants seek summary judgment on the claims against them pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 34.) Defendants contend they “responded to Plaintiff’s distress in a constitutional manner, using appropriate force and medication to ensure everyone’s safety, including Plaintiff’s.” (Doc. 34-1 at 2.) Defendants argue, “Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants Orozco, Cloud, Luna, Cleveland, Contreras and Chan used excessive force, nor can Plaintiff establish that Dr. Rodriguez violated Plaintiff right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and summary judgement should be granted.” (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff opposed the motion, primarily relying upon a Crime/Incident Report because “Plaintiff could not attest to due to the fact that he maintains he does not recall as a result of his suffering from unconsciousness.” (Doc. 38 at 2.) The magistrate judge found no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on those undisputed facts. (Doc. 40 at 9-13.) Specifically, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff did not identify facts that would support all elements of a claim for excessive force, or “raise a question of material fact as to whether Defendants used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (Id. at 10.) In addition, the magistrate judge found “no material dispute of fact” as to Plaintiff’s unwanted medication claim. (Id. at 13.) The magistrate judge determined that the undisputed facts showed “Dr. Rodriguez authorized the medication in good faith, rather than for the purpose of causing harm,” and Plaintiff did not identify any evidence supporting the conclusion that he was, in fact, “harmed by administration of the medication.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (Id.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 40 at 13.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 6, 2024 (Doc. 40) are ADOPTED. 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 34) is GRANTED. 3. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice. ///

1 On September 12, 2024, an inmate filed a request for extension of time on Plaintiff’s behalf, reporting that Plaintiff “was sent to medical” in August 2024. (See Doc. 41 at 1.) The Court struck the pleading because it was filed neither by the pro se Plaintiff nor attorney admitted to practice before the Eastern District. (Doc. 42.) Nevertheless, the Court notes that more than 70 days have now passed since the Findings and Recommendations were issued, and no objections were filed. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 18, 2024 ( Li pA warm TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE