Garcia v. Folks et al

Filing 155

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/23/20 ADOPTING 152 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 135 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL GARCIA,

12

No. 2:14-cv-2378 JAM DB P
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

F. FOLKS, et al.,

15

ORDER

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 5, 2020, 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. Neither party has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

24
25

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

26

ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 5, 2020 (ECF No. 152) are adopted

27
28

in full;
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 135) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED on the following claims:
i. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on his alleged attempted murder
of a Pelican Bay State Prison guard;
ii. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on his complaint to a High Desert
State Prison counselor;
iii. Plaintiff’s claims regarding unsanitary and inadequate food against
defendants Holmes, Witcheal, Madrigal, and Wung;

10

iv. Plaintiff’s claim that his mattress was too thin; and

11

v. Plaintiff’s claims regarding the unsanitary conditions of his confinement

12

against Witcheal, Madrigal, and Wung.

13

b. Defendants’ motion is DENIED on the issue of qualified immunity.

14

c. Defendants’ motion is DENIED on the following claims:

15

i. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendants Holmes and Loftin for

16

tearing up plaintiff’s 602 grievance form and refusing to allow plaintiff to attend

17

his Rules Violation hearing;

18
19
20
21
22
23

ii. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Cox, Loftin, Riley, and Foulk for
unsanitary and inadequate food;
iii. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Cox, Loftin, Riley, and Foulk
regarding the unsanitary conditions of his confinement; and
iv. Plaintiff’s medical claim against defendants Cox, Loftin, Witcheal,
Wung, Madrigal, and Riley.

24
25
26
27

DATED: March 23, 2020
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28
2