Portillo v. Jennifer Webb al

Background

Jamie Portillo, who was representing himself, filed a second amended complaint alleging excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to medical needs. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for pretrial management and a report and recommendation on dispositive motions.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows that there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. The defendants argued that Portillo’s testimony was inconsistent; that he had not shown the alleged assault proximately caused his injury; that Jennifer Webb was not personally involved in the alleged assault; that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; that Manuel Aldir and Lycha Gasanov had no meaningful opportunity to intervene; that Portillo could not show an injury from the alleged improper use of restraints; and that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Objections

On June 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended dismissing all claims except the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims. The defendants objected, arguing that summary judgment should also be granted on the excessive-force claim because Portillo had not shown that the defendants’ alleged use of excessive force caused his injuries.

Portillo initially requested additional time to respond because he was being held in a special housing unit and had limited access to legal materials. The court extended his deadline and stayed the case. Portillo later withdrew his extension request, stating that the magistrate judge had correctly resolved the defendants’ objections, and asked the court to adopt the recommendation in full.

Court’s Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni reviewed the portions of the recommendation that were not specifically challenged for clear error. The court concluded that the defendants’ objections merely repeated arguments they had already made to and lost before the magistrate judge. After reviewing the record, the court found no clear error.

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part. As a result, the claims other than excessive force and failure to intervene were dismissed as recommended, while the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims remained. The court did not state that the motion was granted with prejudice or without prejudice.

The court ordered the clerk to lift the stay and terminate the open summary-judgment motion. It also directed Portillo to state whether he wanted the court to try to obtain free appointed counsel for trial and trial preparation, and set deadlines for the parties to discuss pretrial motions, a joint pretrial order, and a proposed trial schedule.