(PC) Garland Shaun Darnell v. Hedgpeth et al
Filing
75
ORDER Granting Defendants' #65 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge William Haskell Alsup on 11/15/2011. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
13
14
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, J. BOLIN,
THOMPSON, BLACKSTONE,
J. VARGAS, J. OSTRANDER,
15
Defendants.
16
No. C 08-00635 WHA (PR)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
17
INTRODUCTION
18
A California state prisoner proceeding pro se, plaintiff has filed a civil rights
19
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging inter alia that defendants, officers and
20
employees of Kern Valley State Prison, retaliated against plaintiff for his exercise of his
21
First Amendment rights. The remaining defendant in this action is Juan Bolin, a
22
correctional officer at Kern Valley. Defendants have filed a motion for summary
23
judgment. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, even though he was granted an extension
24
of time. For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to all claims
25
against defendant.
26
27
28
1
DISCUSSION
1
2
3
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show
4
that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to
5
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may
6
affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
7
(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a
8
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Ibid.
9
The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying
10
those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence
11
of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
12
(1986). Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must
13
affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the
14
moving party. On an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at
15
trial, however, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence
16
to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325.
17
Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go
18
beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts
19
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The court is only
20
concerned with disputes over material facts and “factual disputes that are irrelevant or
21
unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the
22
district court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v.
23
Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of
24
identifying with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.
25
Ibid. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “[t]he moving party is entitled to
26
a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp, 477 U.S. at 323.
27
28
2
1
2
II.
CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Juan Vargas, a correctional officer at Kern Valley
3
State Prison, engaged in retaliatory acts, thereby violating plaintiff’s First Amendment
4
right to file grievances and petition for redress. Such alleged retaliatory acts included
5
serving plaintiff food to which he was allergic, searching his cell, elbowing him,
6
subjecting him to a strip search, and leaving his cell disheveled.
7
The motion for summary judgment is unopposed. A district court may not grant a
8
motion for summary judgment solely because the opposing party has failed to file an
9
opposition. Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494–95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed
10
motion may be granted only after the court determines that there are no material issues of
11
fact). The Court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the
12
movant’s papers are themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face
13
reveal a genuine issue of material fact. See United States v. Real Property Located at
14
Incline Village, 47 F.3d 1511, 1520 (9th Cir. 1995) (local rule cannot mandate automatic
15
entry of judgment for moving party without consideration of whether motion and
16
supporting papers satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 56), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Degen v.
17
United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th
18
Cir. 1993) (same).
19
The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment are evidence that the
20
defendants did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. More specifically, the
21
evidence does not show that defendant took an adverse action against plaintiff because of
22
plaintiff’s protected conduct, that such action chilled plaintiff’s exercise of his First
23
Amendment rights, and that such action did not reasonably advance a legitimate
24
correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote
25
omitted). The movants’ papers are sufficient to support the motion and do not on their
26
face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for
27
summary judgment is GRANTED.
28
3
1
CONCLUSION
2
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 65) is GRANTED in
3
favor of defendant Vargas as to all claims. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing prison
4
officials to return confiscated legal work (Docket No. 74) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s
5
allegations concerning searches of his cell and confiscations of his property are not part of
6
this action. If plaintiff seeks relief on such claims, he may file a separate civil rights
7
action.
8
9
10
11
The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15 , 2011
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
