(PC) Murphy v. Pierce

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONRELL D. MURPHY, No. 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C. PIERCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Monrell D. Murphy (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 18 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 16, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 70.) 23 Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 73.) 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 70) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED IN PART as 4 follows: 5 a. Defendant Pierce is GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s second claim 6 that Defendant Pierce was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious mental 7 health needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and such claim is 8 DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 9 administrative remedies; 10 b. Defendant Lebeck is GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that 11 Lebeck used excessive force during the second incident, and the claim is 12 DISMISSED with prejudice; 13 c. Defendant Pierce is GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force 14 claim that he was restrained for six hours after the fourth incident, and the claim is 15 DISMISSED with prejudice; and 16 d. Defendants Pierce and Lebeck are GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 17 First Amendment retaliation claims as to the first through fourth incidents of 18 alleged excessive force, and the retaliation claims based on the alleged 19 Ombudsman’s comment are DISMISSED with prejudice. 20 In all other respects, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; 21 3. Plaintiff’s claims against the unknown mental health clinician are DISMISSED without 22 prejudice; and 23 4. The unidentified prison administrator and Plaintiff’s fourth claim against this unidentified 24 prison administrator are DISMISSED without prejudice. 25 As a result of this Order, this action proceeds on the following claims: excessive force 26 claim against Defendants Pierce, Lebeck and Lopez based on the first incident (initial encounter); 27 excessive force claim against Defendant Pierce based on the second incident (initial placement in 28 standing room only holding cell); excessive force claim against Defendant Pierce based on the 1 | third incident (placement in standing room only holding cell); excessive force claim against 2 | Defendant Pierce based on the fourth incident (pummeling during stress position); and retaliation 3 | claim against Defendant Pierce based on the fourth incident (falsely charging Plaintiff with two 4 | rules violations). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | DATE: September 30, 2024 7 Zhe lly 9 TROY L. NUNLEY 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28