Watts v. Ruggiero et al

Filing 47

ORDER adopting in full 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/4/16. Defendants' 32 motion for summary judgment is granted on Plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and on Plaintiff& #039;s First Amendment claims against Defendants Campbell and Audette. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied on Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendant Ruggiero. This case is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY WATTS,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1749 TLN AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

M. RUGGIERO, 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.

20

On March 10, 2016, 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 fourteen days. Defendant Ruggiero,

23

the only party not dismissed from this action, has filed objections to the findings and

24

recommendations.

25

Defendant Ruggiero argues he would have taken the same actions in the absence of

26

Plaintiff’s protected conduct. See Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal

27

alterations omitted) (discussing that at trial “defendants could escape liability only by sustaining

28

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have reached the same
1

1

decision ... even in the absence of the plaintiff’s protected conduct”). However, Plaintiff alleges

2

Ruggiero possessed implementing authority for the search of his cell and recovery of source

3

items. At this stage the inferences must be drawn in Plaintiff’s favor; it is not a concluded fact

4

that Defendant would have implemented the same investigation in the absence of Plaintiff’s

5

protected conduct.

6

Defendant Ruggiero argues Plaintiff must prove Ruggiero lacked legitimate penological

7

goals for taking the steps leading to Plaintiff’s gang validation. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d

8

802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). Under a summary judgment standard, Plaintiff has adequately claimed

9

that Ruggiero initiated the investigation because of Plaintiff’s protected activity and without a

10

legitimate interest in Plaintiff’s gang affiliation. Defendant also argues he is entitled to qualified

11

immunity. “[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the

12

Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.” Id. (citing Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454,

13

461 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under a summary judgment standard, Plaintiff has adequately claimed that

14

Ruggerio retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity. In resolving the question of

15

qualified immunity on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts

16

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1198 (9th Cir.

17

2009), and can only grant the motion if defendant presents evidence that would entitle him to a

18

“directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532,

19

1536 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant does not meet this standard.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

analysis. The Court overrules Defendant’s objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2016, are adopted in full;

26

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted on Plaintiff’s Eighth and

27

Fourteenth Amendment claims, and on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against Defendants

28

Campbell and Audette;
2

1
2
3
4

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied on Plaintiff’s First Amendment
claim against Defendant Ruggiero; and
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial
proceedings.

5
6

Dated: April 4, 2016

7
8
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3