Penton v. Hubard et al

Filing 254

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/30/2021 ADOPTING 251 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 220 Motion for Summary Judgment as described in the order. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY PENTON,

12

No. 2:11-cv-00518-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

HUBARD, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this civil rights action seeking

18

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

19

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

20

On August 12, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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 thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to

23

the findings and recommendations. Defendants Walker, Virga, Donahoo, Bradford, Morrow,

24

Gaddi, Lynch and Salas filed a reply.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommendations filed

2

August 12, 2021, are adopted in full, and the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 220) filed

3

by Defendants Bradford, Donahoo, Gaddi, Lynch, Morrow, Salas, Virga, and Walker is

4

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

5

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to

6

exhaust administrative remedies as to Plaintiff’s access to courts and interference with mail

7

claims is denied.
2. Defendant Bradford is granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant

8
9
10

Bradford wrongfully denied Plaintiff’s 2008 request for PLU status, based on Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.
3. Defendant Lynch is granted summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

11
12

administrative remedies.

13
14

4. Defendants Walker, Virga, Donahoo, and Gaddi are granted summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s access to the courts and interference with mail claims.
5. Defendants Bradford and Morrow are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 2007

15
16

access to the courts claims.
6. Defendants Bradford and Morrow are granted qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s 2007

17
18

access to the courts claims.
7. Defendants Salas and Lynch are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation

19
20
21
22

claims.
8. Defendant Lynch is granted qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
Dated: September 30, 2021

23
24
25
26

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

27
28
2