(PC) Haynes v. Contreas

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAYSHAWN HAYNES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00536-JLT-EPG 10 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’ 12 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED 13 F. CONTREAS, et al., 14 (ECF No. 34) Defendants. 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 16 THIRTY DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff Rayshawn Haynes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). This case proceeds on 20 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Cleveland, Luna, Cloud, 21 Orozco, Chan, and Contreas, and his Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Rodriguez 22 for unwanted medical treatment. (ECF Nos. 8, 12). Plaintiff alleges that he passed out in the 23 shower, that officers then used excessive force on him, and that he was given medical treatment that he did not want. 24 Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts show 25 that Defendants used force in a good-faith effort to restore or maintain order, and not maliciously 26 and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. Defendant also claim that those facts show that 27 medication was used to ensure the safety of Plaintiff and others. 28 1 For the reasons explained below, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion for 2 summary judgment be granted. 3 I. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 4 Plaintiff’s complaint in this case alleges as follows: On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff was in the shower where he was housed (California State 5 Prison-Wasco, Facility A, Building 5, C–Section). From what Plaintiff can remember, he felt 6 light-headed and dizzy. Then everything went black. He regained consciousness, but he was still 7 disoriented, his vision was blurry, his head was throbbing, and it seemed as if his whole body was 8 in severe pain. Plaintiff remembers the sound of someone screaming at him, but he could not 9 comprehend the words. Then, two correctional officers, defendants Cleveland and Luna, both 10 started forcefully putting Plaintiff’s hands behind his back. They twisted and bent his hands. 11 Plaintiff was yelling and screaming to them, because it felt as if they were trying to break his 12 hands. They did not listen. Then, defendant Luna started kneeing Plaintiff in his side, yelling what 13 sounded like “stop fighting.” Defendant Luna said this as a way to try to make sense of the cruel 14 beating they were giving Plaintiff. The next thing Plaintiff knew, his mouth was bleeding from 15 the use of force. Plaintiff was in so much pain and felt like he was going to pass out. He tried to 16 tell the officers, but he was still disoriented and could not get words out properly. Plaintiff could 17 see spots of blood coming out of his mouth. Plaintiff rolled onto his stomach. Defendant 18 correctional officer Cloud and defendant Luna twisted each of his arms. Then defendant Cloud 19 tightened the handcuffs so tight it caused Plaintiff’s wrists to bleed. Defendant Orozco, a 20 correctional officer, applied the restraints to his ankles so tight it caused both of his ankles to 21 swell and bleed. 22 Plaintiff was placed and strapped on a medical gurney and was transported to the triage 23 and treatment area. When Plaintiff arrived, defendant Catalano, a registered nurse, stabbed Plaintiff in his right arm so hard it caused instant pain to his entire forearm. Plaintiff tried to 24 complain about the pressure defendant Catalano was while placing the IV line into Plaintiff’s 25 arm. However, instead of listening, defendant Chan, a correctional sergeant, grabbed a bag and 26 placed it over Plaintiff’s head. It felt like defendant Chan was attempting to suffocate Plaintiff. 27 Then, defendant Cleveland started applying all of his body weight onto Plaintiff, and he tightened 28 1 the already too tight cuffs. Plaintiff does not know who, but it felt like someone grabbed Plaintiff 2 by the neck. 3 The next thing Plaintiff knew, “the other nurse, Doctor Rodriguez” stabbed Plaintiff 4 extremely hard in the thigh with a needle and injected Plaintiff with a chemical agent without his consent, and it caused Plaintiff to lose consciousness. 5 When Plaintiff regained consciousness, he was told by a doctor that he had a seizure due 6 to lack of oxygen flowing to his brain, kidney failure, and a lack of water in his body. The doctor 7 then let Plaintiff know that they had to clean his wounds and that the cuff marks were so deep that 8 they may have to stitch them up if they keep hurting. The doctor also told Plaintiff that they have 9 to clean the marks to avoid an infection. 10 However, after Plaintiff left the hospital, “Wasco did not help with them took picters 11 [sic].” Plaintiff did not get any pictures. Plaintiff now has [illegible] on both wrists, arms, and 12 ankles due to the restraints being applied too tightly. Also, Plaintiff still often feels pain and 13 discomfort from the cuffs when he walks or does push-ups. 14 In its screening order, the Court found that the following claims should proceed past 15 screening: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Cleveland, 16 Luna, Cloud, Orozco, Chan, and Contreas and his Fourteenth Amendment claim against 17 defendant Rodriguez for unwanted medical treatment. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff agreed to proceed on 18 his complaint and not file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff’s remaining claims were 19 dismissed. (ECF No. 18). 20 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 21 A. Summary Judgment 22 Summary judgment in favor of a party is appropriate when there “is no genuine dispute as 23 to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“If there is a genuine 24 dispute about material facts, summary judgment will not be granted.”). A party asserting that a 25 fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by 26 citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, 27 documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), 28 1 admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials, or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine 2 dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B). 4 A party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the 5 district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, 6 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if 7 any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex 8 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “Where the non- 9 moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only prove that there is an 10 absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 11 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). If the moving party does so, “the burden then shifts to the non- 12 moving party to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial,” 13 which is not a light burden, the party “must come forth with evidence from which a jury could 14 reasonably render a verdict in the non-moving party’s favor.” Id.; see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 15 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) (“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the 16 plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably 17 find for the plaintiff.”). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the 18 nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. 19 Additionally, “[a] summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 20 In reviewing the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court “must draw all 21 reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Comite de Jornaleros 22 de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). It need only 23 draw inferences, however, where there is “evidence in the record . . . from which a reasonable 24 inference . . . may be drawn”; the Court need not entertain inferences that are unsupported by fact. 25 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 330 n. 2 (citation omitted). And “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be 26 believed.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court may 27 consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties but is not required to do so. Fed. 28 1 R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2 2001). 3 B. Excessive Force 4 “In its prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’ the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not … use excessive physical force against prisoners.” 5 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “[W]henever prison officials stand accused of 6 using excessive physical force in violation of the [Eighth Amendment], the core judicial inquiry 7 is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 8 maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992). 9 When determining whether the force was excessive, the Court looks to the “extent of 10 injury suffered by an inmate . . . , the need for application of force, the relationship between that 11 need and the amount of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ 12 and ‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.’” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 13 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986)). While de minimis uses of physical force 14 generally do not implicate the Eighth Amendment, significant injury need not be evident in the 15 context of an excessive force claim, because “[w]hen prison officials maliciously and sadistically 16 use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated.” Hudson, 503 17 U.S. at 9. 18 Unduly tight handcuffing can constitute excessive force. “In general, in cases where tight 19 handcuffing was found to constitute excessive force, the plaintiff was in visible pain, repeatedly 20 asked the defendant to remove or loosen the handcuffs, had pre-existing injuries known to the 21 defendant, or alleged other forms of abusive conduct by the defendant.” Reviere v. Phillips, 2014 22 WL 711002, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (citing Shaw v. City of Redondo Beach, 2005 WL 23 6117549, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005)). C. Unwanted Medication 24 “[A] competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing 25 unwanted medical treatment . . .” Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 26 278 (1990). However, “determining that a person has a ‘liberty interest’ under the Due Process 27 Clause does not end the inquiry; ‘whether [a plaintiff’s] constitutional rights have been violated 28 1 must be determined by balancing his liberty interests against the relevant state interests.’” Cruzan, 2 497 U.S. 261, 279 (1990) (footnote omitted) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321 3 (1982). Specifically, the Court must consider “the need for the governmental action in question, 4 the relationship between the need and the action, the extent of harm inflicted, and whether the action was taken in good faith or for the purpose of causing harm.” Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 5 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Jacobson v. 6 Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (where the Supreme Court balanced an individual’s liberty 7 interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State’s interest in preventing the 8 disease). In the prison context, “[p]rison administrators have not only an interest in ensuring the 9 safety of prison staff and administrative personnel, but also the duty to take reasonable measures 10 for the prisoners’ own safety.” Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 225 (1990) (citation 11 omitted). 12 III. ANALYSIS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM 13 A. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Excessive Force Claim 14 Defendants claim that the following facts related to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim 15 against Defendants Cleveland, Luna, Cloud, Orozco, Chan, and Contreas are undisputed: 16 ▪ On Wednesday July 29, 2020, at approximately 1647 hours, Officer 17 Cloud and Orozco observed Plaintiff laying on his back outside the lower shower in Facility A, Building 5, C-Section. 18 ▪ Plaintiff was lying on his back and was unresponsive. 19 ▪ Officer Orozco called a code 1 medical emergency and requested a 20 medical gurney. 21 ▪ Sergeant Contreras and Officer Luna responded to the Code 1 medical announcement. 22 ▪ While medical staff was attending to Plaintiff, Plaintiff attempted to sit 23 up, began swinging his arms and shouted "Get off me nigga!" 24 ▪ Defendant Cloud ordered Plaintiff to place his hands behind his back. Defendant Cloud then attempted to apply the handcuffs. 25 ▪ While Defendant Cloud attempted to apply handcuffs, Plaintiff began 26 to pull his arm away from Defendant Cloud. Plaintiff ignored further 27 commands to stop resisting and continued to pull his arms. 28 1 ▪ Defendant Contreras restrained Plaintiff by grabbing Plaintiff’s lower left and right legs. 2 ▪ Defendant Orozco retrieved a set of leg irons and restrained Plaintiff’s 3 legs. 4 ▪ Defendant Luna restrained Plaintiff’s right arm. Defendant Cloud handcuffed Plaintiff. Plaintiff was then placed on a medical gurney 5 and escorted to the Triage and Treatment Area (“TTA.”) 6 (ECF No. 34–3). In support of these facts, Defendants have submitted declarations under penalty 7 of perjury from Defendants Chan, Orozco, Cleveland, Contreras, and Luna. (ECF Nos. 35–6, 7, 9, 8 9, 10, 11). 9 Defendants also submit the deposition of Plaintiff in support of the following undisputed 10 facts: 11 ▪ On July 29, 2020, Plaintiff recalled that he was in the shower at Facility A, Building 5, C-Section, at Wasco State Prison. Plaintiff 12 recalled leaving his cell and then waking up at a hospital. 13 ▪ Plaintiff could not recall his actions, nor recall what actions the 14 Defendants took. ▪ Plaintiff did not recall having any handcuffs applied or being escorted 15 away from the showers. 16 ▪ Plaintiff learned of the events and the names of the Defendants from 17 reading the 115 reports. 18 ▪ Plaintiff recalled that a spit mask was placed over him and someone gave him an injection while at the Triage and Treatment Area. 19 ▪ After receiving the injection, Plaintiff then recalled regaining 20 consciousness at a hospital. 21 (ECF No. 34–3, 34–4). 22 Based on these facts, Defendants contend that the undisputed facts show that Defendants 23 used force in response to a threat Defendants reasonably perceived to themselves and Plaintiff. 24 Had Defendants not used physical force and mechanical restraints to subdue Plaintiff, they would not have been able to safely transport him to the TTA for the necessary medical evaluation and 25 treatment. (ECF No. 34–1 at 6). 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 B. Plaintiff’s Response Regarding Excessive Force Claim 2 Plaintiff’s opposition regarding his excessive force claim relies entirely on a 3 Crime/Incident Report because “Plaintiff could not attest to due to the fact that he maintains he 4 does not recall as a result of his suffering from unconsciousness.”1 Plaintiff claims those reports indicate the following sequence of events: 5 6 ▪ Defendant Cloud accompanied by Defendant Orozco approached Plaintiff as he lied on ‘his back outside the lower C Section shower.’ 7 Plaintiff appeared to be asleep. 8 ▪ Both Defendant Cloud and Orozco then utilized their personal radio to request a Code 1 medical emergency and a medical gurney. Defendant 9 Sergeant Contreas responded to the housing unit along with other correctional officers and medical staff. 10 ▪ Defendant Contreas observed Plaintiff still lying on the ground and 11 observed medical staff ‘attempting to ask Haynes i.e., Plaintiff 12 questions.’ Defendants Cloud, Orozco and Contreas all then observed Plaintiff attempting to sit up from his lying position on the floor, 13 clench his fist and began swing his arms in front of him. No correctional staff or medical staff were struck by Plaintiff as Plaintiff 14 was still sitting on the ground and had just awakened from unconsciousness. All prison staff and employees were apparently 15 standing around him as they observed his actions. 16 ▪ After Plaintiff began swinging his arms in front of him, Defendant 17 Cloud ordered Plaintiff to turn over onto a prone position on the ground and submit to handcuffs. Plaintiff complied and Defendant 18 Cloud proceeded to place one cuff on Plaintiff’s left wrist. After Defendant Cloud had placed the one cuff on Plaintiff’s left wrist as 19 Plaintiff was now on his stomach in a prone position, Plaintiff is alleged to have begun pulling his left hand away and trying to move 20 away from Defendant Cloud while still on the ground. Defendant 21 Cloud is then alleged to have used physical force to maintain control of Plaintiff’s left hand and eventually was able to place Plaintiff in 22 handcuff with his hands cuffed behind his back. 23 ▪ While Defendant Cloud was engaged in using physical force on Plaintiff, Defendant Orozco having observed what was taking place 24 went to the control booth and ask the control booth officer J. Waldrop to provide him with a set of leg restraints. While Defendant Orozco 25 was retrieving the leg restraints Defendant Contreas was applying 26 physical force on Plaintiff’s lower limbs. By the time Orozco returned with the leg restraints Plaintiff was already in handcuffs. 27 28 1 Minor typographical errors have been corrected. 1 ▪ The Plaintiff was then placed in a gurney and escorted to the Triage Treatment Area (TTA) for evaluation and treatment. 2 3 (ECF No. 38, at p. 2–3). 4 Plaintiff argues that Defendants Cloud, Orozco, and Contreas did not follow protocol, 5 which required them to put an unresponsive inmate in restraints. (ECF No. 38 at 3) (“Though the Plaintiff was clearly unconscious ‘asleep’ as two of the defendants claim, they did not apply any 6 restraints on plaintiff or attempt to turn him on his side in accordance with standard medical 7 practice for seizure patients to prevent them from swallowing their tongues and possibly choking 8 to death.”). Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants used force against him because they wrongly 9 believed Plaintiff was being “disruptive,” rather than that Plaintiff was acting unintentionally 10 based on “his re-awakening from oblivion.” (Id.) 11 Defendants also violated protocol by placing Plaintiff in handcuffs behind his back, and 12 doing so in a way that caused him pain by cutting off his blood circulation. Moreover, by putting 13 Plaintiff on his back when transporting Plaintiff to medical, Defendants caused Plaintiff comfort 14 and breathing difficulties. As a result, Plaintiff states that he has suffered nerve damage to his 15 right hand, and is now numb without feeling. 16 C. Analysis of Excessive Force Claim 17 Here, the facts are undisputed. Indeed, Plaintiff relies on Defendants’ own statements of 18 their actions as set forth in their crime incident reports because Plaintiff himself cannot recall the 19 events. Thus, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding 20 Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. 21 Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force 22 based on those undisputed facts. Those facts show that Defendants applied force in a good faith 23 effort to restore discipline, rather than to maliciously and sadistically cause Plaintiff pain. According to Defendants’ declarations and those reports, force was used after Plaintiff “became 24 disruptive by clenching his fists and swinging them in front of his chest yelling ‘Get away from 25 me nigga.’” (ECF No. 38 at 8). After Defendant Cloud attempted to apply handcuffs, Plaintiff 26 “began to pull away by turning and attempting to pull his left arm away.” (Id.) Then Plaintiff 27 “began to claw at [Cloud’s] right wrist with his left fingernails scratching [Cloud’s] right wrist.” 28 1 (Id.) Finally, after Plaintiff was handcuffed, Defendants stopped using force. Thus, the undisputed 2 facts establish a need for application of force and a perception by Defendants that Plaintiff was 3 a threat at the time force was used. 4 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendants’ use, or lack of use, of restraints also do not state a constitutional claim. Plaintiff first claims that Defendants failed to put handcuffs on him 5 while he was unresponsive, in violation of prison protocol. However, a failure to restrain Plaintiff 6 certainly does not state a claim for excessive force. Moreover, a violation of prison rules does not 7 state a constitutional claim. Cousins v. Lockyer 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009) (“state 8 departmental regulations do not establish a federal constitutional violation”). Furthermore, 9 Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants later put the handcuffs on too tightly does not support his 10 excessive force claim because Defendants put the handcuffs on when Plaintiff acted aggressively 11 against them, and indeed fought Defendants’ attempts to put on the handcuffs. (ECF No. 38 at 8) 12 (“As I applied the handcuffs to his left wrist, Haynes began to pull away by turning his body 13 away and attempting to pull his left arm away from me.”). Plaintiff does not allege that he was in 14 visible pain, repeatedly asked Defendants to loosen the handcuffs, or had pre-existing injuries 15 known to Defendants. Given the undisputed facts, Plaintiff’s allegation of damage from the 16 handcuffs does not raise a question of material fact as to whether Defendants used excessive force 17 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 18 The Court thus recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to 19 Plaintiff’s excessive force claim be granted. 20 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR UNWANTED MEDICAL TREATMENT 21 A. Defendants’ Motion Regarding Unwanted Medical Treatment Claim 22 Turning to Plaintiff’s Claim for unwanted medical treatment, Defendants submit that the 23 following facts are undisputed: 24 ▪ While in the TTA, Plaintiff began experiencing an apparent seizure. When Plaintiff recovered, he became agitated, started pulling against 25 the restraints on him and twisting his body back and forth. 26 ▪ Defendant Chan determined it was necessary to use force in order to maintain the safety of medical staff, and ensure Plaintiff received 27 medical attention. 28 1 ▪ Defendant Chan saw blood and saliva coming from Plaintiff mouth, and placed a spit hood over Plaintiff head. 2 ▪ Defendant Chan instructed Officer Perez and Defendant Cleveland to 3 restrain Plaintiff in order to prevent Plaintiff from getting injured and to protect medical staff. 4 ▪ Defendant Cleveland attempted to physically control Plaintiff, by 5 placing both hands on Plaintiff’s left arm. Defendant Cleveland was 6 able to cuff Plaintiff to the gurney. 7 ▪ Registered Nurse Catalano contacted Dr. Rodriguez. R.N. Catalano informed Dr. Rodriguez that Plaintiff was unable to be subdued, and 8 she could not administer an IV to Plaintiff. 9 ▪ IV’s are necessary in order to treat drug intoxication or overdose and to prevent potential risk of organ failure. 10 ▪ Based on R.N Catalano’s information, Dr. Rodriguez authorized RN 11 Catalano to administer Ativan to Plaintiff. 12 ▪ In order to prevent Plaintiff from seriously harming himself, and to ensure Plaintiff received medical attention, R.N. Catalano 13 administered Ativan to Plaintiff. 14 ▪ Plaintiff was then transported to a hospital outside of Wasco State 15 Prison. 16 (ECF No. 34–3 at 4–6). Defendants’ motion also includes a declaration from Defendant 17 Dr. Rodriguez, who declares the following under penalty of perjury: 18 I received a call about a medical emergency occurring at the Triage and Treatment Area from medical staff. I was advised that inmate Haynes was 19 being combative and posed a threat to himself, medical staff, and officers. Registered Nurse Catalano was attempting to administer intravenous fluids 20 to inmate Haynes because he had been found unresponsive in the housing 21 unit showers and was agitated and combative. An IV is administered because, often we are worried about drug 22 intoxication/overdose causing combative or extremely agitated behavior 23 and possibly causing organ failure. Most of the time inmates refuse to reveal what drugs they have taken. IV fluids would be indicated to reduce 24 risk of organ failure and allow easier medication administration as well as faster onset of action of medications administered intravenously. 25 However, R.N. Catalano was unable to administer the fluids because of Haynes conduct. Medical staff in the TTA requested permission to 26 administer an anxiolyic to calm Haynes down so that he could be further 27 assessed and treated. I was not at the Triage and Treatment area and did not personally observe what occurred. 28 1 2 Based on the information I received, I authorized R.N. Catalano to administer Ativan to Haynes. 3 Ativan, also known as Lorazepam is a benzodiazepine medication. It is 4 used to treat anxiety (including anxiety disorders), trouble sleeping, severe agitation, and active seizures. 5 If an inmate requires medical attention, and is being combative and cannot 6 be restrained or calmed, a psychotropic drug such as Ativan is often administered in order to calm the inmate. 7 While there are potential risks from the use of Ativan, the benefit of 8 administering the medication, so that the patient can be further assessed and treated, far outweighs those risks. This is especially true in this case 9 because Haynes had experienced unexplained unconsciousness and was combative, both of which could have been caused by a serious medical 10 issues and required immediate medical attention. 11 At no time did I act with a conscious disregard for Hayne’s medical needs. In fact, failing to administer Ativan would have meant that Haynes would 12 have been at risk for further injury, or be unable to receive medical care. 13 (ECF No. 34–5). 14 Based on these facts, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s combative behavior constituted a 15 medical emergency. Dr. Rodriguez’s action in directing the use of Ativan was necessary and done 16 in good faith to ensure the safety of Plaintiff, rather than to cause Plaintiff harm. B. Plaintiff’s Opposition Regarding Unwanted Medication Claim 17 Plaintiff’s opposition again relies on Defendants’ own reports of the events at issue. 18 Plaintiff argues that RN Catalano’s report only described Plaintiff as shifting away, and not doing 19 a marked change that would justify involuntary medication. 20 However, the report from RN Catalano that Plaintiff attaches to his opposition states in 21 relevant part: “While attempting to start an IV on Haynes right arm, Inmate Haynes turned 22 abruptly to his left causing my left arm to become caught between his arm, body, and waist 23 restraints. Due to his movement, my left arm was hyperextended.” (ECF No. 38 at 13). 24 Plaintiff also argues that he was restrained on the gurney at the time, and was not acting in 25 anger. 26 27 28 1 Finally, he claims that Defendant Rodriguez should be liable because he could have asked 2 more questions regarding Plaintiff’s situation before authorizing medication against Plaintiff’s 3 will. 4 C. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Unwanted Medication Claim The Court again finds no material dispute of fact as to this claim. Plaintiff himself relies 5 on Defendants’ own statement of events to support his position. 6 Based on these facts, Defendant Rodriguez is entitled to summary judgment. True, 7 Plaintiff has a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medication. However, there was a need for the 8 medication because R.N. Catalano was unable to administer fluids to reduce the risk of organ 9 failure because of Plaintiff’s conduct. Dr. Rodriguez used his medical judgment to determine that 10 medication was needed to treat Plaintiff. Moreover, it does not appear that Plaintiff was harmed 11 by administration of the medication. Taken as a whole, the undisputed facts establish that 12 Dr. Rodriguez authorized the medication in good faith, rather than for the purpose of causing 13 harm. 14 Thus, the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this 15 claim be granted. 16 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 For the reasons explained above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) be GRANTED; and 19 2. the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 22 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and 24 filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 28 1 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 2 | in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 ; IT IS SO ORDERED. 6] Dated: _ August 6, 2024 [Jee ey □□ 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14