Steven Ranae Gleen Candler v. J. Ball, et al.

Summary

Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone addressing defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action brought by a pro se prisoner. The court recommends granting summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that the plaintiff did not identify defendants Ball or Armendariz as using force and that the medical evidence did not corroborate his allegations against the defendants.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment should be granted for Ball and Armendariz because Plaintiff's testimony did not identify either defendant as having used force against him or, as to Armendariz, even being present during the alleged attacks.
2. Summary judgment should be granted for defendants because the evidence did not create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding either the objective or subjective element of Plaintiff's excessive-force claim.
3. The court did not reach defendants' alternative qualified-immunity argument because summary judgment was recommended on the merits of the excessive-force claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff could not identify Defendants Ball or Armendariz as having used force against him.
2. Whether the evidentiary record created a genuine dispute of material fact on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against the defendants.
3. Whether the court needed to reach defendants' alternative qualified-immunity argument after resolving the motion on the merits.

Disposition

other