Carson v. Martinez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID VINCENT CARSON, Case No.: 16-CV-1736 JLS (BLM) CDCR #J-19886, 12 ORDER: (1) OVERRULING Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS; v. (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 RECOMMENDATION; AND F. MARTINEZ, et al. 15 (3) GRANTING IN PART AND Defendants. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT 18 (ECF Nos. 63, 83, 87) 19 20 Presently before the Court is Defendants D. Garcia, F. Martinez, and G. Casian’s 21 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63). Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major 22 submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF No. 83) recommending 23 Defendants’ Motion be Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Plaintiff David Vincent Carson 24 submitted Objections to the R&R (“Objs.,” ECF No. 87), and Defendants submitted a 25 Reply to those Objections (ECF No. 88). 26 BACKGROUND 27 Judge Major’s R&R contains a complete and accurate recitation of the relevant 28 factual and procedural history underlying Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ Motion. 1 See generally R&R. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth 2 therein. 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 5 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make 6 a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 7 recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in 8 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 9 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In 10 the absence of a timely objection, however, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is 11 no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. 12 Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 13 (9th Cir. 1974)). 14 ANALYSIS 15 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment argues that “(1) Defendant Garcia is 16 ‘entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim because she did 17 not witness or participate in the force incident[,]’ (2) Defendant Martinez is entitled to 18 summary judgment ‘because Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is barred by the favorable 19 determination doctrine[,]’ and (3) Defendant Casian is entitled to summary judgment 20 because ‘Plaintiff’s constant and progressive medical care’ does not demonstrate that she 21 was deliberately indifferent to [Plaintiff’s] medical needs.” R&R at 2 (citing MSJ). 22 Magistrate Judge Major recommends the Court (1) deny Defendants’ Motion as to 23 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Garcia, (2) grant 24 Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 25 Martinez as it pertains to conduct underlying the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) prepared 26 by Defendant Martinez, but deny the Motion to the extent the claim is based upon conduct 27 unrelated to the RVR, and (3) grant Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s Eighth 28 Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Casian. See generally R&R. 1 The Parties have not objected to Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R as it pertains to the 2 claims against Defendant Martinez and Defendant Garcia. The Court finds the R&R is 3 well reasoned and contains no clear error and therefore ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety 4 as it pertains to these claims. 5 Plaintiff has objected to the R&R as it pertains to the claim against Defendant 6 Casian. First, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Major’s conclusion that “[e]ven 7 viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not 8 presented evidence creating a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant Casian was 9 deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.” R&R at 26. Plaintiff argues 10 that Magistrate Judge Major misconstrued the evidence it relied on in reaching her 11 conclusion and that the evidence and relevant case law supports his claim that the delay in 12 receiving the medical care he requested creates a triable issue of fact. Objs. at 1–11. 13 Second, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Major’s conclusion that “there is no 14 evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Casian terminated all of Plaintiff’s 15 accommodation chronos.” R&R at 30. Plaintiff argues that, contrary to Magistrate Judge 16 Major’s findings, the medical records show that Defendant Casian “arbitrarily and 17 capriciously, based on personal animosity, canceled [the medical chronos] before they were 18 set for ‘annual review.’” Objs. at 12. 19 After a de novo review of the R&R’s reasoning, the record evidence, and applicable 20 legal authorities, the Court concludes it must agree with Magistrate Judge Major’s 21 recommendations. With regard to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Casian delayed medical 22 treatment, the Court agrees that, at most, the evidence shows a difference of opinion 23 between Plaintiff and Defendant Casian regarding the appropriate medical treatment. See 24 Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A difference of opinion does not 25 amount to a deliberate indifference to [plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.”). 26 As for Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Casian terminated Plaintiff’s chronos, the 27 Court agrees that there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim. See R&R at 30. To the 28 extent Plaintiff argues that Defendant Casian violated his Eighth Amendment rights by 1 || limiting the duration of the lower bunk chronos, the Court finds this argument equally 2 || without merit. “[A]t most, it could be considered a difference of opinion between Plaintiff 3 Defendant Casian as to the appropriate length of the limitation.” Jd. at 31 (citing 4 || Singleton v. Lopez, 577 F. App’x 733, 735 (9th Cir. 2014)). The Court therefore ADOPTS 5 R&R as it pertains to these claims. 6 CONCLUSION 7 After reading the R&R and conducting a de novo review of those portions to which 8 || Plaintiff objected, the Court must agree with Magistrate Judge Major’s sound reasoning. 9 || Accordingly, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 87), 10 ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 11 |}PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63). Specifically, the Court 12 DENIES Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against 13 Defendant Garcia, (2) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiffs First Amendment 14 retaliation claim against Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon to conduct 15 |}underlying the RVR and DENIES the Motion as to Plaintiffs retaliation claim against 16 Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon conduct unrelated to the RVR, and (3) 17 GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against 18 || Defendant Casian. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 3, 2019 tt f Le 21 on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28