Cantu v. Garcia et al

Filing 161

ORDER Adopting 154 Findings and Recommendations Denying Cross Motions for Summary Judgment re 139 , 146 , 149 , and Referring Back to the Magistrate for Further Proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/18/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA J. CANTU,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GARCIA, et al.,

15
16
17

No. 1:09-cv-00177-DAD-DLB

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING CROSS
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND REFERRING BACK TO THE
MAGISTRATE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS
(Doc. Nos. 139, 146, 149, 154)

18
19

Plaintiff Joshua J. Cantu is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

20

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his original complaint

21

on January 15, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case

22

was transferred to this court on January 26, 2009. The action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second

23

amended complaint, filed June 6, 2013, only on the following claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment

24

excessive force claim against defendant Garcia; and (2) an Eighth Amendment failure to protect

25

claim against defendants Goree and Baptiste. (See Doc. Nos. 91, 92.)

26

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking summary judgment in his favor as to defendant Garcia on

27

May 14, 2015. (Doc. 139.) He filed a separate motion seeking summary judgment in his favor

28

on his claim against defendant Baptiste on May 28, 2015. (Doc. No. 146.) Defendants filed their
1

1

own motion for summary judgment on June 15, 2015. (Doc. No. 149.) The matters were referred

2

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

3

On December 15, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

4

recommendations recommending that all of the parties’ motions for summary judgment be

5

denied. (Doc. No. 154.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and

6

contained notice that any objections thereto must be filed within thirty days. After receiving an

7

extension of time to do so, plaintiff filed objections on February 24, 2016. (Doc. No. 159.)

8

Defendants did not file any objections.

9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

10

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

11

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

12

by proper analysis.

13

In his objections plaintiff merely argues that his testimony, as well as the declaration of

14

inmate De La Riva, “should be evidence enough to determine” defendant Garcia used excessive

15

force, and defendants Goree and Baptiste failed to intervene. (Doc. No. 159, at 4). This is not the

16

standard applicable on summary judgment, however. Although plaintiff may have come forward

17

with evidence favorable to his claims, the court cannot ignore the evidence offered by defendants

18

in support of their position and in opposition to plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. The

19

conflicting evidence presented by the parties creates a disputed issue of material fact, meaning

20

that this case cannot be disposed of on summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Washington

21

Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

22

For the reasons set forth above:

23

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 15, 2015 (Doc. No. 154) are

24

adopted in full;

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

2.

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 149) are DENIED; and

2
3
4
5

Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 139, 146), and

3.

This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 18, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3