(PC) Baltimore v. Haggins, No. 1:2010cv00931 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;DENYING 30 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/16/12. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Baltimore v. Haggins Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT BALTIMORE, Case No. 1:10-cv-00931-AWI-JLT (PC) 12 13 v. 14 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. CHRISTOPHER HAGGINS, 15 (Doc. 34) Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this matter, Plaintiff alleges a cause of action based on 20 his claim that on October 22, 2009, he was subjected to excessive force in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on April 19, 2012. 22 (Doc. 30). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 9, 2012 (Doc. 32) and Defendant has replied 23 (Doc. 33). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 25 On October 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Thurston issued Findings and Recommendations 26 denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34). Defendant filed objections to the 27 Findings and Recommendations on November 6, 2012. (Doc. 35). In his objections, Defendant 28 Haggins reiterates his position that the use of his baton to subdue Plaintiff was appropriate under 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the circumstances and argues that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations do not 2 afford the proper deference due a correctional officer. 3 In regard to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant 4 Haggins, the Findings and Recommendations cited evidence presented by Plaintiff which raised 5 genuine issues of material fact. (Doc. 34 at 3-4). Based upon the evidence presented and the two 6 completely different versions of events described by the parties, the Magistrate Judge properly 7 recommended that Defendant Haggins’ motion for summary judgment be denied. 8 Plaintiff’s handcuffed and undressed state, the Court cannot conclude as Defendant does that 9 supporting testimony of two fellow officers that is at odds with Plaintiff’s version of events 10 entitles Defendant to judgment as a matter of law. For the same reason, nor can the Court agree 11 with Defendant’s contention that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings did not afford Defendant the 12 proper deference. Given 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 14 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), the Court has conducted a de novo review 15 16 17 18 of the case. Having carefully, reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 23, 2012 are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 19 20 2. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Haggins is DENIED. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 16, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 26 27 66h44d 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.
