(PC) Haney v. Adams et al, No. 1:2007cv01104 - Document 115 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 89 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Defendants' 54 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims of Excessive Force and Denial of Exercise Under the Eighth Amendment; RESERVING Ruling on Plaintiff's Claims under the Equal Protection Clause Pending further Discovery; and REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge to REOPEN DISCOVERY signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/28/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Haney v. Adams et al Doc. 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MONTE HANEY, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01104-AWI-SMS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DENIAL OF EXERCISE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT; RESERVING RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PENDING FURTHER DISCOVERY; and REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO REOPEN DISCOVERY v. RICHARD E. EARLY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 (Docs. 54, 89) 17 / 18 Plaintiff, Monte Haney (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 22 which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that Objections were to 23 be filed within ten days. (Doc. 89.) Both Plaintiff and Defendants filed timely objections. (Docs. 24 91, 92.) 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. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 19, 2012, is adopted as follows; 3 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed June 21, 2011 (Doc. 54), as to 4 Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants J.G. Oaks and D. 5 Silva for use of excessive force is DENIED; 6 3 .Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed June 21, 2011 (Doc. 54), as to 7 Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants R. Botello, M. 8 Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, and T. Cano for denial of exercise is DENIED; 9 4. The ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims 10 under the Equal Protection Clause is RESERVED until further discovery is 11 conducted and a new opposition and reply are filed on that claim; 12 5. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to re-open discovery and set a 13 schedule for discovery matters and the subsequent filing of a new opposition by 14 Plaintiff limited solely to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that remains 15 pending as to Plaintiff’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause and reply thereto 16 by Defendants. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: 0m8i78 November 28, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.