(PC) Monclova-Chavez v. McEachern et al, No. 1:2008cv00076 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 75 ; ORDER Denying Motion for Summary Judgment 62 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/16/11. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Monclova-Chavez v. McEachern et al Doc. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MAXIMILIAN MONCLOVA-CHAVEZ, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00076-AWI-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ERIC MCEACHERN, et al., 13 Defendants. (Doc. 75) / 14 15 Plaintiff Maximilian Monclova-Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner bringing this civil 16 rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 17 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for civil rights violations committed by federal actors. 18 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 19 and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 5, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 21 recommended that Defendant Tincher’s motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. #75.) The 22 Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections 23 to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date on which 24 the Findings and Recommendations were served. Defendant Tincher filed objections to the Findings 25 and Recommendations on February 4, 2011. (Doc. #76.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 27 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 28 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Tincher gratuitously slammed a heavy steel 2 door into Plaintiff from behind, causing injuries to his hands, shoulder, and arm. Plaintiff alleged 3 that he was in severe pain. Plaintiff further alleged that the door hit him with so much force that 4 Plaintiff fell forward. One of the escorting officers grabbed Plaintiff, preventing him from hitting 5 the floor. 6 Defendant Tincher argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed 7 to provide evidence of Tincher’s subjective intent to harm Plaintiff. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s 8 “colorable evidence” regarding the degree of force used is sufficient for a reasonable fact finder to 9 conclude that Tincher possessed a subjective intent to harm Plaintiff. It is not unreasonable to infer 10 that a person is acting with malicious intent when he allegedly gratuitously slams a heavy steel door 11 into another person with such great force that it causes the victim to fall forward and suffer severe 12 pain. 13 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 14 1. The January 5, 2011 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; and 15 2. Defendant Tincher’s August 30, 2010 motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: 0m8i78 March 16, 2011 CHIEF 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.
