(PC) Pasion v. Haviland et al, No. 2:2010cv03227 - Document 112 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 109 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 03/31/16 ORDERING that defendant Cappel's 83 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Benson, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Pasion v. Haviland et al Doc. 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE M. PASION, 12 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-3227 TLN AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOHN A. HAVILAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 7, 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. (ECF No. 109.) 23 Defendant has filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 110) and Plaintiff 24 has responded (ECF No. 111). 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 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Court does not find Defendant’s argument that “the Magistrate Judge collapsed the 2 constitutional inquiry into the qualified immunity inquiry” compelling. (ECF No. 110 at 1.) The 3 Magistrate Judge performed a thorough analysis of both prongs of the qualified immunity 4 framework and properly determined that a clearly established right against retaliatory punishment 5 existed at the time and that in the circumstances of this case (an alleged First Amendment 6 retaliation claim) consideration of Defendant’s motive is applicable to the qualified immunity 7 analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 7, 2016 (ECF No. 109), are adopted 10 11 in full; and 2. Defendant Cappel’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 83) is denied. 12 13 Dated: March 31, 2016 14 15 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.