Johnson v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 116

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 99 , 100 , 110 , 111 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/25/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01264-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 99, 100, 110, 111)

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
complaint, filed on July 21, 2009, against Defendants L. Gonzales1 and A. Murrieta for excessive

20
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
21
On August 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
22
23

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on November 15, 2013, be granted in part and
denied in part as follows: (1) Defendants’ motion be granted as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim

24
against Defendant Gonzales arising out of the initial takedown on June 9, 2008, on the ground that
25

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is barred by the favorable termination rule; (2) Plaintiff’s excessive

26
force claim arising out of the initial takedown by Defendant Gonzales be dismissed without prejudice;
27
28
1

Defendant was sued as “L. Gonzalez.”

1

1

(3) Defendants’ motion be denied as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants Gonzales

2

and Murrieta arising out of an alleged assault following the takedown on June 9, 2008; and (4)

3

Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were

4

served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

5

after service. (ECF No. 111.) Plaintiff filed objections on August 22, 2014. (ECF No. 113.) No

6

other objections or responses were filed.

7

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by determining that his claim

8

of excessive force arising from the initial takedown is barred by the favorable termination rule.

9

Plaintiff contends that this portion of his action is not barred because he does not seek the restoration

10

of good time credits. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. As explained by the Magistrate Judge,

11

Plaintiff’s success in this action regarding the initial takedown would necessarily invalidate the prison

12

disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of Plaintiff’s good time credits. (ECF No. 111, p. 9.)

13

The favorable termination rule applies to prison disciplinary proceedings if those proceedings resulted

14

in the loss of good-time or behavior credits, Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48, 117 S.Ct.

15

1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997), and it applies no matter the relief sought. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544

16

U.S. 74, 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005).

17

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

18

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

19

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

20

analysis.

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 12, 2014, are adopted in full;

23

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on November 15, 2013, is

24

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

25

a.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim

26

against Defendant Gonzales arising out of the initial takedown on June 9, 2008,

27

on the ground that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is barred by the favorable

28

termination rule;
2

b.

1

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim arising out of the initial takedown by
Defendant Gonzales is DISMISSED without prejudice;

2
c.

3

Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against

4

Defendants Gonzales and Murrieta arising out of an alleged assault following

5

the takedown on June 9, 2008; and
d.

6
7

3.

Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity is DENIED;

This matter shall be set for jury trial on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force

8

claims against Defendants Gonzales and Murrieta arising out of an alleged assault

9

following the takedown by Defendant Gonzales on June 9, 2008; and

10
11

4.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent
with this order.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: September 25, 2014

15

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3