(PC) Wesson v. Linde

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 VONTELL WESSON, No. 2:19-cv-1880 KJM DB P

11 Plaintiff,

12 v. ORDER

13 BURT A. LINDE,

14 Defendant.

15

16 Plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

18 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19 On September 8, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20 were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. F. & R., ECF No. 42.

22 Defendant has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Objs., ECF No. 43.

23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the

25 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

26 The court addresses defendant’s objections here. The magistrate judge found there is a

27 genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether defendant loosened or tightened plaintiff’s

28 handcuffs after plaintiff complained the handcuffs were too tight. F. & R. at 3. In the previous

1 | findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge also noted the video footage provided to the

2 || court shows plaintiff “yelled when defendant adjusted [the handcuffs].” Prev. F. & R. at 9, ECF

3 | No. 37. Plaintiff avers he yelled in pain. /d.

4 Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly

5 || established law that “acting immediately in response to Plaintiff's complaint and not

6 || demonstrably injuring Plaintiff[] would violate the Fourth Amendment.” Objs. at 2. However,

7 || “[iJt is well-established that overly tight handcuffing can constitute excessive force.” Wall v.

8 || County of Orange, 364 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004); see also LaLonde v. County of Riverside,

9 || 204 F.3d 947, 960 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A series of Ninth Circuit cases has held that tight handcuffing

10 || can constitute excessive force.”). Here, as the magistrate judge noted, there is a genuine dispute

11 | of material fact regarding whether defendant ignored plaintiff's complaints by tightening rather

12 || than loosening the handcuffs. There is also a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant

13 || yelled in pain after defendant adjusted the handcuffs. See Meredith v. Erath, 342 F.3d 1057, 1063

14 | (9th Cir. 2003) (finding tight handcuffs that cause “unnecessary pain” violate the Fourth

15 || Amendment); see also Thompson v. Lake, 607 F. App'x 624, 625 (9th Cir. 2015) (unpublished)

16 | (finding plaintiffs request for police to “loosen the handcuffs was sufficient to satisfy” any

17 || purported requirement to complain the handcuffs are too tight and plaintiff “was not required to

18 | show that the handcuffs caused visible physical injury”). “The issue of tight handcuffing is

19 || usually fact-specific and is likely to turn on the credibility of the witnesses.” LaLonde, 204 F.3d

20 | at 960. Accordingly, given the clearly established law that tight handcuffing can constitute

21 || excessive force, summary judgment is not appropriate at this stage. See id.

22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

23 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 8, 2022, are adopted in full.

24 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is denied because he is not

25 || entitled to qualified immunity.

26 3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate for all further pretrial

27 || proceedings.

28 || DATED: January 24, 2023. is JV A / /

CHIEF A ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE