(PC) Hackworth v. German et al, No. 1:2006cv00772 - Document 68 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 65 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants' 47 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/7/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hackworth v. German et al Doc. 68 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ROBERT HACKWORTH, Case No. 1:06-cv-00772-AWI-DLB (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (Doc. 65) 9 v. 10 H. GERMAN, et al., 11 12 13 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Robert Hackworth (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 17 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 19 On April 23, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that 20 recommended the court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s due process 21 claim and deny Defendants’ motion on the excessive force claim. 22 Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections 23 to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On May 11, 2009, 24 Plaintiff filed an Objection. The Findings and 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 27 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the objections, 28 Plaintiff contends that there is a disputed issue of fact on his due process claim because Plaintiff 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 contends he served part of a SHU term that was later vacated. As explained by the Magistrate 2 Judge, Defendants have provided evidence showing that whatever time Plaintiff was in the SHU 3 was a result of other rules violations and not the vacated SHU term. Because Defendants met their 4 initial responsibility, the burden shifted to Plaintiff to establish that a genuine issue as to any 5 material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 6 586 (1986); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc.,210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th 7 Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to present evidence refuting Defendants’ evidence that the time he 8 spent in the SHU between the SHU term assessment and the vacation of the term was not related 9 to the vacated SHU term. The opposing party cannot “‘rest upon the mere allegations or denials 10 of [its] pleading’ but must instead produce evidence that ‘sets forth specific facts showing that there 11 is a genuine issue for trial.’” Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th 12 Cir.2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(e)). Thus, summary judgment on the due process claim 13 as to defendants Martinez and Vella is appropriate. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 23, 2009, is adopted in full; and 16 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed September 5, 2008, to the extent 17 set forth above, is DENIED as to defendants German and Weiglein, and GRANTED 18 as to defendants Martinez and Vella. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: 0m8i78 August 7, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
