Rangel v. Tilton et al

Filing 90

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ; adopting 56 , 87 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/29/14: This matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

D. LATRAILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01790-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 56, 87)

13
Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

14

15
16
17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on January 9, 2012, against Defendants LaTraille and Taber1
for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First
Amendment and assault and battery under state law.
On August 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on June 7, 2013, be granted in part and denied in
part as follows: (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force
in violation of the Eighth Amendment and on Plaintiff’s claim of assault and battery in violation of
state law be denied; (2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation
in violation of the First Amendment be granted; and (3) Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity on
Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on
the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days after
service. (ECF No. 111.) On September 22, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ request for an

28
1

Defendants were erroneously sued as “D. Latraille” and “J. Tabor” in the first amended complaint.

1

1

extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Defendants’ objections were

2

due on or before October 10, 2014. No objections have been filed.

3

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

4

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and

5

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 20, 2014, are adopted in full;

8

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on June 7, 2013, is GRANTED IN

9
10

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force in

11

violation of the Eighth Amendment and on Plaintiff’s claim of assault and battery in

12

violation of state law is DENIED;

13

b.

violation of the First Amendment is GRANTED;

14

15

c.

Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force is
DENIED;

16
17

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation in

3.

This matter shall be set for jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force in violation

18

of the Eighth Amendment and assault and battery under state law against Defendants

19

LaTraille and Taber; and

20
21

4.

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

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: October 29, 2014

25

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2