Dewayne Thompson v. P. Kuppinger, et al.

Summary

This document is Findings and Recommendations in a prisoner civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. The court recommends denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment on claims involving prison conditions, excessive force, retaliation, property handling, cell searches, and medical care. The excerpt specifically analyzes the Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim arising from flooding in the plaintiff’s cell.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to create a genuine dispute that Struve or Heinkel subjected him to conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm or acted with deliberate indifference during the week he remained in a leaking cell. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate for defendants on this portion of Claim 1.
2. Plaintiff failed to show that Pohovich or Lujan exposed him to a substantial risk of serious harm or acted with deliberate indifference when escorting him after his fall and returning him to his cell.
3. Plaintiff failed to show that Aung's treatment decisions were medically unacceptable and made in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff's health. Summary judgment was appropriate for Aung on Claim 9.
4. Plaintiff failed to show that Pohovich or Lujan used more than de minimis force, caused more than de minimis physical injury, or acted in a manner constituting excessive force under the Eighth Amendment.
5. Plaintiff failed to establish any of his retaliation claims because he did not show the required adverse action, causal connection to protected conduct, retaliatory motive, or failure of the challenged action to advance a legitimate correctional goal.
6. The court did not reach defendants' qualified-immunity argument because it concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the merits of all claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim based on leaking and flooding in his cell.
2. Whether plaintiff established an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against officers who escorted him after a fall.
3. Whether plaintiff established deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against physician Aung.
4. Whether the alleged handcuff twisting, touching, pushing, and verbal abuse constituted excessive force under the Eighth Amendment.
5. Whether defendants retaliated against plaintiff for protected grievances, threatened grievances, or this lawsuit in violation of the First Amendment.
6. Whether the cross-motions for summary judgment should be resolved without reaching defendants' qualified-immunity argument.

Disposition

other