Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. Cox

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 22, 2017

DAVEYON CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES G. COX, et. al., Defendants.

          REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Robert C. Jones, Senior United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice, LR 1B 1-4.

         Before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of defendants Boardman, Fillman, Jones, Rigney, and Werber. (ECF No. 53; Exhibits at 53-1 to 53-20.) On February 28, 2017, the court issued an order advising that Defendants had filed motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 48[1], 53), which Plaintiff had failed to oppose. (ECF No. 57.) The court gave Plaintiff an additional twenty days to file a response to the motions. (Id.) On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 58.) The following day, the court granted Plaintiff's motion, giving him up to May 5, 2017, to file a response to the motions. (ECF No. 59.) As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, no response has been filed.

         After a thorough review, it is recommended that the motion be granted and that judgment be entered in favor of these defendants.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is an inmate within the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The allegations giving rise to the complaint took place while Plaintiff was housed at Ely State Prison (ESP). (Compl., ECF No. 4.)

         Plaintiff filed his original complaint on April 3, 2015, which the court screened and directed to be filed on November 13, 2015. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 3, 4.) He was given leave to amend to correct certain deficiencies in the complaint, but failed to file an amended complaint within the prescribed time period; therefore, the court ordered that the action would proceed on the claims identified in the screening order. (ECF No. 5.)

         In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on September 25, 2014, he was in an altercation with another correctional officer, which resulted in him being shot and taken to the infirmary at approximately 9:30 p.m., but this event is not the subject of this action. (ECF No. 4 at 9.) At approximately 11:30 p.m., Plaintiff claims that defendant Werber opened Plaintiff's cell door and allowed C.E.R.T. Officers Pinkham, Rigney, Green, Boardman, Parr and Deeds to beat up Plaintiff unnecessarily. (Id. at 7, 9-10.) He alleges that Deeds grabbed him and squeezed his throat, while Pinkham, Boardman and Parr tackled him to the floor and started to kick him and punch him in the mouth and nose. (Id. at 9.) Rigney, Green, Pinkham, Parr and Deeds then began stomping on him while he was on the floor, handcuffed behind his back and not resisting. (Id. at 10.) Werber failed to intervene, and when Plaintiff tried to exit his cell, Werber pushed him back in and the abuse continued. (Id.) Plaintiff claims he suffered injuries including a black eye, bruised ribs, numbness to the hands and wrists, injury to the nose, migraine headaches and difficulty breathing. (Id. at 11.)

         He avers that Nurse A. Scott came to his cell and Scott agreed with another officer not to provide Plaintiff with any aid. (Id.) He claims that Scott refused to treat Plaintiff, and instead left him on the floor bleeding. (Id. at 11-12.) Plaintiff also contends that Nurse Jones failed to remove shotgun pellets from Plaintiff. (Id. at 14.)

         He goes on to allege that on September 26, 2014, Associate Warden Michael Fletcher ordered Correctional Officer Fillman to clean up blood from Plaintiff's injuries from the previous night's attack, and Fletcher choked and threatened Plaintiff before leaving his cell. (Id. at 8, 15-16.) Fillman failed to intervene. (Id. at 16.)

         The court allowed Plaintiff to proceed with an excessive force claim based on the allegation that he was attacked in his cell by Deeds, Rigney, Green, Pinkham, Boardman and Parr, and an Eighth Amendment claim against Werber for failing to intervene. He was also allowed to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claims against Scott and Jones for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need based on the alleged failure to provide medical treatment. In addition, the court found Plaintiff stated colorable Eighth Amendment claims against Fletcher and Fillman based on the allegations that Fletcher choked Plaintiff, and Fillman watched without intervening. (ECF No. 3.)

         Green, Fletcher, Pinkham and Scott were dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to timely serve them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (See ECF No. 50.) In addition, summary judgment was granted to defendant Parr on the basis that he was not present on the date Plaintiff alleged Parr used excessive force against him. (Id.) The undersigned has separately recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of Deeds because he was not present when the events in question are alleged to have taken place. Therefore, the remaining defendants who move for summary judgment now are: Rigney, Boardman, Werber, Jones and Fillman.

         These defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies insofar as Jones and Werber are concerned, and in any event, none of the events alleged by Plaintiff ever transpired such that each of them is entitled to summary judgment. (ECF No. 53.)

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         "The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court." Northwest Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In considering a motion for summary judgment, all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. In re Slatkin, 525 F.3d 805, 810 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). On the other hand, where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).

         A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.