(PC) Mitchell v. Adams, et al, No. 2:2006cv02321 - Document 106 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/25/2010 ORDERING that The 101 findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2010, are adopted in full. Plaintiff's 71 motion for partial summary judgment, filed on November 24, 2009 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Defendants' 78 cross-motion for summary judgment, filed on December 28, 2009 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated in this order. (Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Mitchell v. Adams, et al Doc. 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT MITCHELL, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. D.G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. CIV S-06-2321 GEB GGH P ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On July 27, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff and defendants 22 have filed objections to the findings and recommendations; defendants have filed a reply to 23 plaintiff’s objections. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 26 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2010, are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, filed on November 24, 2009 5 (docket # 71) is granted in part and denied in part: 6 a) Granted as to plaintiff’s claims of a violation of his rights under the 7 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as to defendants Ortiz, J.A. Diaz, J. Diaz, 8 Tellerico/Tallerico, Vanderville, Owen and Hellwig, and judgment is entered for plaintiff on 9 these claims; 10 b) Denied as to plaintiff’s claims of a violation of his First Amendment 11 rights on plaintiff’s claim of retaliation by defendant Morrison for plaintiff having filed 12 grievances and complaints and for his allegedly having denied him access to the courts; 13 14 15 16 c) Denied as to plaintiff’s claims that defendants Vanderville, Owen and Hellwig retaliated against him by placing him at a higher custody level; 3. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, filed on December 28, 2009 (docket # 78), is granted in part and denied in part: 17 18 a) Granted as to plaintiff’s claim of a violation of his First Amendment rights by defendant Morrison with regard to a denial of his right to access to the courts only; 19 b) Denied as to plaintiff’s claim that defendant Morrison retaliated against 20 plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment for filing inmates grievances/complaints, and this 21 claim shall proceed; 22 23 c) Granted as to defendant Epperson on plaintiff’s claim of a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection violation; 24 25 26 d) Granted as to defendant Daviega on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim; e) Denied as to plaintiff’s claims that defendants Vanderville, Owen and 2 1 Hellwig retaliated against him by placing him at a higher custody level and these claims shall 2 proceed; 3 4 f) Granted as to plaintiff’s claims against defendants Adams and Ortiz on plaintiff’s claims of retaliation; 5 g) Denied as to plaintiff’s claims of retaliation by defendants J.A. Diaz, 6 Hill, Hubach, J. Diaz, Tellerico/Tallerico and Epperson because of grievances and complaints by 7 plaintiff and these claims shall proceed; 8 9 10 h) Granted as to plaintiff’s supplemental state law negligence claim against all defendants. Dated: August 25, 2010 11 12 13 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
