United States District Court, D. Oregon
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate currently in the custody of the Oregon Department
of Corrections, filed suit and alleged that he was subjected
to the unlawful use of excessive force while housed at the
Lane County Jail as a pretrial detainee. Defendants now move
for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff fails to
present sufficient facts in support of his claim. For the
following reasons, defendants' motion for summary
judgment should be granted, plaintiff's motions for
summary judgment should be denied, and this action should be
alleges that on March 17, 2016, he was detained in a holding
cell at the Lane County Jail. A corrections officer informed
plaintiff that he was being released and directed plaintiff
to collect his belongings. Plaintiff told the officer that he
could not leave because of a head injury he allegedly
sustained after falling from an intake cell bench several
hours earlier. Plaintiff then fell asleep. Plaintiff alleges
that he was awakened as he was “being pinned to [his]
bed by a shield and numerous members of the cell extraction
team.” Compl. at 3 (ECF No. 1, No.
3:16-cv-01791-MK). Plaintiff alleges that after he was
restrained, Deputy Utter bent back his right middle finger
“with great force, ” causing damage to his
tendons, cartilage, and ligaments. Id. at 3-4.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his
establish an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must
show that the officer's use of force was objectively
unreasonable under the circumstances. Kingsley v.
Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2472-73 (2015). Defendants
maintain that plaintiff cannot make this showing and move for
summary judgment. To prevail on their motion, defendants
must show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The court must construe the evidence
and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to plaintiff. Torres v. City of Madera,
648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011).
undisputed that on March 17, 2016, plaintiff was directed to
exit a holding cell at the Lane County Jail. After plaintiff
refused, several deputies extracted him from the cell. During
the cell extraction, deputies placed a shield over
plaintiff's body until they gained control of his arms
and legs, and then they placed handcuffs and shackles on
plaintiff's wrists and ankles. Plaintiff does not
challenge the force used, generally, to extract him from the
cell. Rather, plaintiff claims that Deputy Utter, in
retaliation for plaintiff's lack of cooperation, pulled
back plaintiff's middle finger and caused severe damage.
Plaintiff alleges that he cried out, “Why did you do
that?” and Deputy Utter responded, “You will
learn to follow directions.” Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 15
(ECF No. 88-1 at 53).
support their motion for summary judgment, defendants cite
portions of plaintiff's deposition testimony showing
that, after watching a video of the cell extraction,
plaintiff could not identify when Deputy Utter pulled back
his finger. Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A (ECF No. 81-1). In
response to the court's order, defendants also submitted
authenticated videos of the cell extraction and
plaintiff's interactions with sheriff's deputies and
other staff on March 17, 2016. See Shrives Decl.
& attached videos filed under seal (ECF Nos. 111, 113).
videos of the cell extraction wholly refute plaintiff's
claim. As an initial matter, the deputies' use of force
to extract plaintiff was objectively reasonable under the
circumstances. Plaintiff admits that he refused to leave the
cell after being directed to do so. Defs.' Mot. Summ. J.
Ex. A (ECF No. 81-1). In response, several deputies entered
the cell, placed a shield over plaintiff's body, and
placed handcuffs on his wrists and shackles on his ankles.
The deputies then assisted plaintiff to a standing position.
The videos show that a deputy held the backs of
plaintiff's hands together until plaintiff was
restrained, and nothing in the videos suggests that Deputy
Utter or any other deputy intentionally pulled back on
plaintiff's finger. Further, the alleged verbal exchange
between plaintiff and Deputy Utter occurs at no time in
either video, and at no time during or after the cell
extraction does plaintiff complain of pain in his finger.
the evidence does not reflect or suggest the use of excessive
force, and plaintiff fails to present a genuine issue of
material fact to defeat summary judgment.
Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81) should be GRANTED,
Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 100,
107) should be DENIED, and this action should be DISMISSED.
Any appeal of an order or judgment dismissing these actions
would be frivolous or not taken in good faith, and
plaintiff's IFP status should be revoked.
recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)
should not be filed until entry of the district court's
judgment or appealable order. The parties may file specific
written objections within fourteen (14) days from the date of
service of a copy of this recommendation. If an objection is
filed, any response to the objection is due within fourteen
(14) days from the date of the objection. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72, 6. The parties are advised that the failure to
file objections within the specified time may waive the right
to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).