Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 143

ORDER ADOPTING 138 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 129 Motion for Summary Judgment ; ORDERED that this matter be REFERRED back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/09/15. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
Y. A. YATES, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 129, 138)

17

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January

19

18, 2011. Defendants Mendez, Daley, Gonzales, Nichols, Samonte and Valdez filed a motion for

20

summary judgment on July 24, 2014.

21

On November 25, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

22

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the

23

Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted as to

24

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Mendez used excessive force in violation of the Eighth

25

Amendment to handcuff Plaintiff behind his back despite a waist chain chrono; Defendants’ motion

26

for summary judgment be denied as to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Mendez used excessive

27

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment by dumping Plaintiff from his wheelchair and dragging

28
1

1

him on the concrete floor; and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied as to Plaintiff’s

2

allegations that Defendants Samonte, Daley, Nichols, Gonzales and Valdez violated his Eighth

3

Amendment rights by failing to intervene in the alleged use of excessive force by Defendant Mendez.

4

The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice than any

5

objections were to be filed within thirty days. More than thirty days have passed and no objections

6

have been filed.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 25, 2014, are adopted in full;

12

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on July 24, 2014, is GRANTED IN

13

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

14

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s

15

allegations that Defendant Mendez used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment

16

to handcuff Plaintiff behind his back despite a waist chain chrono;
b.

17

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiff’s allegations

18

that Defendant Mendez used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment by

19

dumping Plaintiff from his wheelchair and dragging him on the concrete floor;
c.

20

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiff’s allegations

21

that Defendants Samonte, Daley, Nichols, Gonzales and Valdez violated his Eighth

22

Amendment rights by failing to intervene in the alleged use of excessive force by Defendant

23

Mendez; and

24

3.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent

25

with this order.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 9, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3