Molina v. Blanton
| Decision Date | 13 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 12-424 GBW/WDS |
| Parties | THOMAS MOLINA, Plaintiff, v. NATHANIEL BLANTON and CHRISTOPHER GALLEGOS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity, doc. 29. Having reviewed the briefing, docs. 34, 37, the Court finds the motion well-taken and grants it.
On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff Thomas Molina was arrested for Driving While Under the Influence. Doc. 29 at 6 ¶ 1 & ex. A; Doc. 34 at 4 ¶ 1. He was booked and taken to the Valencia County Detention Center (VCDC). Doc. 1 ¶ 5; Doc. 29 at 6 ¶ 4 & ex. C at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from "a mental illness requiring prescription medication." Doc. 1 ¶ 2. At VCDC, he was informed that his medication was "not in" and that he would therefore not receive it. Doc. 29, ex. C at 2; Doc. 1 ¶ 7. In response, Plaintiff used "colorful language" and threatened to file a lawsuit against VCDC. Doc. 34 at 5 ¶ 12; Doc. 29, ex. C at 2. Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff and began to lead himto segregation. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 11, 13; Doc. 34, ex. 1. As Plaintiff and Defendants approached the door to segregation, an altercation ensued in which Plaintiff was pushed up against the door by Defendants and then taken to the floor. Doc. 1 ¶ 16; Doc. 34, ex. 1. This incident was recorded by the hallway surveillance camera. See doc. 34, ex. 1.
Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit in state court; Defendants removed it to this Court on April 23, 2012. Plaintiff's complaint contains four counts, three of which arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and one of which presents a state law claim. The claims are as follows: (1) a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claim, alleging that Defendants used excessive force when they pushed Plaintiff against the wall and onto the floor;1 (2) a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs; (3) a First Amendment claim, alleging that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining about his lack of medication by sending him to segregation and pushing him against the wall and onto the floor; and (4) a battery claim under the New Mexico State Tort Claims Act. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 25-57. Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on November 6, 2012. See doc. 29.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), this Court must "grant summaryjudgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant bears the initial burden of "show[ing] that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the movant meets this burden, Rule 56(c) requires the non-moving party to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).
Thom v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., 353 F.3d 848, 851 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). All material facts set forth in the motion and response which are not specifically controverted are deemed undisputed. D.N.M.LR-Civ. 56.1(b).
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court should keep in mind three principles. First, the court's role is not to weigh the evidence, but to assess the threshold issue whether a genuine issue exists as to material facts requiring a trial. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249. Second, the court must resolve all reasonable inferencesand doubts in favor of the non-moving party, and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 550-55 (1999). However, if the non-moving party's story "is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Third, the court cannot decide any issues of credibility. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255. "[T]o survive the . . . motion, [the nonmovant] need only present evidence from which a jury might return a verdict in his favor." Id. at 257.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force, being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and retaliating against him for exercising his right to free speech. Defendants contend that they have qualified immunity because Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts indicative of the alleged violations. For the reasons below, the Court agrees with Defendants and finds that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claim.
Plaintiff objects to four of the exhibits attached to Defendants motion on evidentiary grounds. The Court overrules these objections and will consider the exhibits. Although the Court may only consider admissible evidence when...
To continue reading
Request your trial