Chatman v. Felker et al

Filing 146

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/15/14 ORDERING that Defendant Felker, Harper, Harrod, Keating, McDonald, Perez, Probst, Smith, Uribeand Williams' 120 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff' ;s remaining First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Felker, McDonald and Perez described in Count Ten of plaintiff's complaint are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies resulting in Felker, McDonald and Perez being dismissed from this action.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES CHATMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:09-cv-1028 JAM CKD P

v.

ORDER

TOM FELKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 25, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20
21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No party has filed

23

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

24
25

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

26

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

27

analysis.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendant Felker, Harper, Harrod, Keating, McDonald, Perez, Probst, Smith, Uribe

3

and Williams’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 120) is granted in part and denied in part

4

as follows:

5

A. Granted with respect to plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment claim against

6

defendant Williams resulting in defendant Williams being dismissed from this

7

action.

8

B. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment denial of

9

medical care claim against defendant Uribe described in “Count Two” of

10

plaintiff’s complaint.

11

C. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment retaliation and

12

Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendant Smith described in

13

“Count Three” of plaintiff’s complaint.

14

D. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment retaliation claim

15

against defendant Probst concerning events occurring July 5, 2007 identified in

16

“Count Four” of plaintiff’s complaint.

17

E. Granted with respect to plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment retaliation

18

claims in “Count Five” against defendants Felker, McDonald and Perez.

19

F. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s claim that defendant Harrod dismissed a

20

grievance filed by plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of his First

21

Amendment rights as identified in “Count Six” of plaintiff’s complaint.

22

G. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment claim against

23

defendant Keating based upon Keating denying plaintiff the ability to

24

communicate with attorney Fellner identified in “Count Eight” of plaintiff’s

25

complaint.

26

H. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s claim that defendant Harper retaliated against

27

plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment by confiscating certain personal

28

/////
2

1

property items because plaintiff staged a hunger strike as identified in “Count

2

Nine” of plaintiff’s complaint.

3

2 Plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Felker,

4

McDonald and Perez described in “Count Ten” of plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed for failure

5

to exhaust administrative remedies resulting in Felker, McDonald and Perez being dismissed from

6

this action.

7

DATED: April 15, 2014

8

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3