Carr v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 91

ORDER ADOPTING 86 Findings and Recommendations, and Denying 74 Plaintiff's and 78 Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/19/2021. Case is Referred Back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings. (Maldonado, C)

Case 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB Document 91 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLAUDE CARR,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TED PRUITT,
(Doc. Nos. 74, 78, 86)
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Claude Carr is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

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

20

On June 2, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21

recommending that both plaintiff’s and defendant’s pending motions for summary judgment be

22

denied. (Doc. No. 86.) The findings and recommendations served on plaintiff contained notice

23

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. (Id.) On June 21, 2021, plaintiff’s

24

objections were docketed, and on July 6, 2021 defendant filed a reply thereto. (Doc. Nos. 88, 90.)

25

As outlined in the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff’s motion for summary

26

judgment was denied because the assigned magistrate judge determined there remained genuine

27

disputes of material fact regarding whether defendant Pruitt personally participated in the alleged

28

constitutional violation or whether he had knowledge of the alleged safety risks associated with
1

Case 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB Document 91 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 3
1

plaintiff’s job as a waste manager. (Doc. No. 86 at 7.) In his opposition, plaintiff argues that

2

defendant Pruitt must have been aware of those safety risks because he was plaintiff’s supervisor,

3

and was the individual to whom plaintiff had directed his concerns regarding the weight of the

4

waste bags he was required to lift. (Doc. No. 88 at 1–2.) Plaintiff also relies on citations to

5

defendant’s declaration as in attempt to show no genuine dispute of material fact exists. (Id.) In

6

reply, defendant counters that plaintiff misrepresents both the legal standard applicable to motions

7

for summary judgment and defendant’s prior arguments in opposition to plaintiffs motion, and

8

finally, defendant repeats the facts which he contends establish the existence of a dispute as to

9

whether he had knowledge of any alleged safety risks to plaintiff. (Doc. No. 90 at 2–4.)

10

The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that a genuine dispute

11

of material fact exists as to defendant Pruitt’s knowledge of any alleged safety risks. Plaintiff’s

12

objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations

13

because they merely recount the evidence submitted in support of his motion and do not address

14

the evidence upon which defendant has relied. Both parties have presented evidence which

15

disputes the other’s position. Accordingly, summary judgment cannot be entered in favor of

16

either party.

17

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

18

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

19

including plaintiff’s objections and defendant’s reply, the court finds the findings and

20

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

21

Accordingly:

22

1. The June 2, 2021 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 86) are adopted in full;

23

and

24

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 74) is denied;

25

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 78) is denied; and

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

Case 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB Document 91 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 3
1

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

2

consistent with this order.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 19, 2021
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