Haney v. Adams et al
Filing
115
ORDER Adopting 89 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Defendants' 54 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims of Excessive Force and Denial of Exercise Under the Eighth Amendment; RESERVING Ruling on Plaintiff's Claims under the Equal Protection Clause Pending further Discovery; and REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge to REOPEN DISCOVERY signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/28/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MONTE HANEY,
10
11
12
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01104-AWI-SMS (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DENIAL OF
EXERCISE UNDER THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT; RESERVING RULING ON
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS UNDER THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE PENDING
FURTHER DISCOVERY; and REFERRING
CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO
REOPEN DISCOVERY
v.
RICHARD E. EARLY, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
(Docs. 54, 89)
17
/
18
Plaintiff, Monte Haney (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to
20
a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On March 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein
22
which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that Objections were to
23
be filed within ten days. (Doc. 89.) Both Plaintiff and Defendants filed timely objections. (Docs.
24
91, 92.)
25
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
26
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
27
and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
28
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 19, 2012, is adopted as follows;
3
2.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed June 21, 2011 (Doc. 54), as to
4
Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants J.G. Oaks and D.
5
Silva for use of excessive force is DENIED;
6
3
.Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed June 21, 2011 (Doc. 54), as to
7
Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants R. Botello, M.
8
Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, and T. Cano for denial of exercise is DENIED;
9
4.
The ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims
10
under the Equal Protection Clause is RESERVED until further discovery is
11
conducted and a new opposition and reply are filed on that claim;
12
5.
The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to re-open discovery and set a
13
schedule for discovery matters and the subsequent filing of a new opposition by
14
Plaintiff limited solely to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that remains
15
pending as to Plaintiff’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause and reply thereto
16
by Defendants.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
0m8i78
November 28, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?