Baltimore v. Haggins

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;DENYING 30 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/16/12. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
ROBERT BALTIMORE,

Case No. 1:10-cv-00931-AWI-JLT (PC)

12
13
v.
14

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

CHRISTOPHER HAGGINS,
15

(Doc. 34)
Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this matter, Plaintiff alleges a cause of action based on

20

his claim that on October 22, 2009, he was subjected to excessive force in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on April 19, 2012.

22

(Doc. 30). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 9, 2012 (Doc. 32) and Defendant has replied

23

(Doc. 33). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston

24

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 302 and 303.

25

On October 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Thurston issued Findings and Recommendations

26

denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34). Defendant filed objections to the

27

Findings and Recommendations on November 6, 2012. (Doc. 35). In his objections, Defendant

28

Haggins reiterates his position that the use of his baton to subdue Plaintiff was appropriate under

1

1

the circumstances and argues that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations do not

2

afford the proper deference due a correctional officer.

3

In regard to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant

4

Haggins, the Findings and Recommendations cited evidence presented by Plaintiff which raised

5

genuine issues of material fact. (Doc. 34 at 3-4). Based upon the evidence presented and the two

6

completely different versions of events described by the parties, the Magistrate Judge properly

7

recommended that Defendant Haggins’ motion for summary judgment be denied.

8

Plaintiff’s handcuffed and undressed state, the Court cannot conclude as Defendant does that

9

supporting testimony of two fellow officers that is at odds with Plaintiff’s version of events

10

entitles Defendant to judgment as a matter of law. For the same reason, nor can the Court agree

11

with Defendant’s contention that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings did not afford Defendant the

12

proper deference.

Given

13

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley

14

United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), the Court has conducted a de novo review

15

of the case. Having carefully, reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and

16

Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 23, 2012 are ADOPTED IN
FULL; and

19
20

2. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Haggins is DENIED.

21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 16, 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

26
27

66h44d

28
2