Coddington v. Cabrera

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 RYAN CODDINGTON, Case No. 3:17-cv-00256-MMD-WGC 10 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER1 REGARDING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD CABRERA, et al., WILLIAM G. COBB — 12 — Defendants. — 13 — — 14 — 15 I. SUMMARY 16 Pro se Plaintiff Ryan Coddington alleges that Defendants Deputy Jack Sobol, 17 Deputy Herbert Parada, and Sergeant Richard Cabrera violated his Fourteenth 18 Amendment Due Process right when they applied excessive force to him while he was a 19 pretrial detainee. 20 Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 21 Judge William G. Cobb (“R&R”) (ECF No. 25), regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 22 Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (ECF No. 18) and Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s 23 Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment2 (“Cross24 25 1 The Court issues an amended order to correct a typographical error in reference to the Report and Recommendation in the conclusion of this order. No other changes 26 are made. 27 2 Defendants filed their opposition and cross-motion as one document contrary to LR IC 2-2(b). (ECF No. 19.) Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the briefs relating to 28 Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendants’ Cross-Motion. (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 21, 23.) 1 Motion”) (ECF No. 19). Judge Cobb recommends that the Court deny both motions. 2 (ECF No. 25 at 12:12–14.) Defendants filed objections to the R&R (ECF No. 27), but 3 Plaintiff did not. As discussed further below, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s 4 reasoning, adopts the R&R in full, and denies both Motions. 5 II. BACKGROUND 6 On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time he was involved in a 7 physical altercation with all three Defendants in the Lyon County Jail Complex. Both 8 parties dispute whether Defendants’ use of force was objectively reasonable. In doing 9 so, both parties rely on video of the incident as well as the sworn testimony of Deputies 10 Sobol and Parada at the preliminary hearing of the criminal charges brought against 11 Plaintiff in connection with the incident. (ECF No. 18 at 18:14–22; ECF No. 19 at 5:2, 15; 12 ECF No. 25 at 5:16–18.) 13 Judge Cobb reviewed the video and concluded that there are genuine disputes of 14 material fact that the video cannot resolve. (ECF No. 25 at 11:17–18.) Accordingly, 15 Judge Cobb recommends that this Court deny both Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendants’ 16 Cross-Motion. (Id. at 12:12–14.) This Court has reviewed all six footages within the video 17 (ECF No. 20–1) and agrees with Judge Cobb’s observations, incorporates by reference 18 his descriptions of the video (ECF No. 25 at 10:5–19, 11:1–16), and does not recite 19 those details here. 20 III. LEGAL STANDARD 21 A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Where a party 24 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 25 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 26 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, 27 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 1 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 2 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 3 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 4 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 5 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 6 Ariz. 2003 ) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 7 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 8 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 9 the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. 10 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 11 which no objection was filed). 12 B. Summary Judgment Standard 13 “The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is 14 no dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., — 15 — 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the 16 pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there 17 is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as 18 a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is 19 “genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could 20 find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it could affect the outcome of 21 the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 248–49 22 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, 23 summary judgment is not appropriate. See id. at 250-51 . “The amount of evidence 24 necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a jury or judge to 25 resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.’” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 26 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 27 253 , 288–89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts 1 Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues 3 of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870 , 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once 4 the moving party satisfies Rule 56’s requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting 5 the motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 6 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the 7 pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery 8 material, to show that the dispute exists,” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404 , 9 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more than simply show that there is some 10 metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th 11 Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 , 586 12 (1986)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position 13 will be insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252 . 14 Further, “when parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment, ‘[e]ach 15 motion must be considered on its own merits.’” Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. 16 v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132 , 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (quoting 17 William W. Schwarzer, et al., The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, — 18 — 139 F.R.D. 441 , 499 (Feb. 1992)). “In fulfilling its duty to review each cross-motion 19 separately, the court must review the evidence submitted in support of each cross20 motion.” Id. 21 IV. DISCUSSION 22 Absent any objections to the R&R by Plaintiff, this Court adopts Judge Cobb’s 23 recommendation and denies Plaintiff’s Motion. In light of Defendants’ objections to the 24 R&R, however, this Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to 25 adopt the R&R with respect to Defendants’ Cross-Motion. Upon reviewing the R&R and 26 records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge Cobb’s R&R in full and 27 overrules Defendants’ objections. 1 While the parties fundamentally disagree on whether Defendants’ use of force 2 was reasonable, both sides specifically dispute, inter alia, whether Plaintiff was still 3 resisting when Defendants punched and kicked him while Plaintiff was on the ground. 4 (ECF No. 18 at 18:24–28, 19:1–13; ECF No. 19 at 6:8–23.) Both sides contend that the 5 video supports their positions, but this Court (in reviewing the video) agrees with Judge 6 Cobb in finding that the video does not confirm either side’s version of events, and there 7 is no audio to provide context. (ECF No. 25 at 10:3–4.) 8 Defendants object to the R&R on two grounds. First, Defendants contend that the 9 “videotape, even without sound, supports the officers’ version of events and not those of 10 the Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 27 at 4:19–21.) Defendants repeatedly insist that it is immaterial 11 whether Defendants gave Plaintiff verbal commands. (See, e.g., id. at 4:8–10.) 12 According to Defendants, no amount of verbal command would have been effective or 13 required under their version of events where Plaintiff, without warning, strikes a 14 corrections officer, flees from a cell block, and continues to resist officers while he is on 15 the ground. (Id. at 3:24–26, 4:10–13, 8:2–8, 8:20.) Second, Defendants contend that 16 they are entitled to qualified immunity for using force they claim was reasonable under 17 their version of the facts. (Id. at 8:18–23.) 18 This Court overrules both of Defendants’ objections for the same reason—their 19 objections are premised on their version of the altercation as evidenced in the video. 20 But the video does not conclusively prove Defendants’ version of the altercation or make 21 the parties’ dispute of material facts less genuine. Viewing the evidence and drawing all 22 inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the opposing party to Defendants’ 23 Cross-Motion, a rational trier of fact could find that Plaintiff was not resisting when 24 Defendants punched and kicked him while he was on the ground. See Lolli v. County of 25 Orange, 351 F.3d 410 , 412 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that, where a video reveals little 26 about an incident at issue in the case, a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law 27 must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving parties); Pinder v. Baker, et al., No. 3:13-cv1 summary judgment where video footage, although not conclusive, supports inmate’s 2 contention that officers had no good faith reason to beat inmate when he was not 3 resisting); Bradberry v. Nev. Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:11-cv-00668-RCJ, 2013 WL 4702953 , 4 at *11 (D. Nev. Aug. 30, 2013) (denying motion for summary judgment on an Eighth 5 Amendment, excessive-force claim where a reasonable jury could infer that an inmate 6 was in restraints and not resisting when correctional officers applied force on him); 7 City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (holding that the due 8 process rights of a pretrial detainee are “at least as great as the Eighth Amendment 9 protections available to a convicted prisoner”). Furthermore, Defendants may have 10 downplayed the significance of audio that would reflect whether Defendants were giving 11 Plaintiff verbal commands, but this Court is not persuaded. Audio of such verbal 12 commands—even if ineffective—could provide helpful context to a trier of fact in 13 discerning whether Plaintiff was resisting. 14 Lastly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. In reaching that 15 determination, this Court must decide (1) whether there is a constitutional violation, 16 which is a question of fact, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time 17 of the challenged conduct, which is a question of law. See Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. 18 Police Dep't, 556 F.3d 1075, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing to Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 19 194, 201 (2001)); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (“[O]fficials can be on notice 20 that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.”). As 21 discussed above, a rational trier of fact can find that Defendants used excessive force 22 when they punched and kicked Plaintiff after he stopped resisting, thereby violating his 23 Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. See Butler v. Anakalea, 472 F. App'x 506 , 24 507 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that there is dispute of material fact on an excessive-force 25 claim where there was evidence that a corrections officer “slammed and pressed [a 26 pretrial detainee] against a concrete wall while he was handcuffed and not actively 27 resisting”); Carrillo v. Gillespie, No. 2:12-CV-2165-JCM-VCF, 2013 WL 2147470 , at *5 1 || he was allegedly restrained by two corrections officers and not resisting when a third 2 || officer injured his jaw, slammed his head against a wall, and pulled his hair and head 3 || backwards). The law is also clear that such right was clearly established at the time the 4 || altercation occurred. See Beavers v. Edgerton, 773 F. App'x 897 , 898 (9th Cir. 2019)° 5 || (affirming district court’s denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity because it 6 || was clearly established in 1994 that using force on a non-resisting detainee violates their 7 || Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment); Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 8 || 1178, 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that because the law regarding excessive 9 || force was clearly established in 1994, qualified immunity was improperly granted to 10 || officers who allegedly beat an inmate during a cell extraction, despite the inmate's lack 11 || of resistance). 12 Overall, there remains a genuine dispute of material facts precluding summary 13 || judgment on Plaintiff's excessive-force claims. Accordingly, the Court denies summary 14 || judgment. 15 || V. CONCLUSION 16 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the R&R of Judge Cobb (ECF 17 || No. 25) is accepted and adopted in full. 18 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is 19 || denied. 20 It is further ordered that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF 21 || No. 19) is denied. — 22 — 33 DATED nunc pro tunc THIS 12" day of September 2019. 24 LZ Oh . — IRANDA M. DU 25 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 3 Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, Beavers is not precedent, but may be cited 27 by this Court. See also FRAP 32.1 This Court accordingly cites to Beavers not for its precedential value, but because it finds the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on a similar point of 28 law persuasive.