(PC) Sumahit, et al v. Parker, et al, No. 2:2003cv02605 - Document 86 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 12/1/09 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 9/3/09, are adopted in full; and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment 68 is granted in part and denied in part as detailed. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Sumahit, et al v. Parker, et al Doc. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FRANK R. SUMAHIT, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 No. CIV S-03-2605 FCD KJM P vs. CLAY PARKER, et al., Defendants. 13 ORDER / 14 Plaintiff, who has been civilly committed as a sexually violent predotor, has filed 15 16 this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 17 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order 18 No. 262. 19 On September 3, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 3, 2009, are adopted in 3 full; 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 68) is granted in part 4 5 and denied in part as detailed below: A. Granted as to plaintiff’s claims that he was denied access to the courts and 6 7 hampered in his ability to contact counsel; that his ability to practice his religion was restricted; 8 that he was denied access to medical and mental health care and was required to make co-pays 9 for medical visits; that his non-legal mail was read; that he was subjected to strip searches; that 10 his right to privacy was violated because officers could see him in the shower and on the toilet; 11 that his right to privacy in his medical records and therapy sessions was violated; that his 12 clothing and mattress were inadequate; that he was left in the booking area for long periods of 13 time; that he received cold food; that his First Amendment rights were abridged by the book 14 donation policy; that he suffered from unsanitary conditions and from being compelled to clean 15 his own cell; that he was denied adequate access to the dayroom while housed in SHU and as to 16 any claim arising from 2000; as well as to any claim against defendant Parker in his individual 17 capacity; and 18 B. Denied as to plaintiff’s claims that his telephone calls were monitored; that he 19 was restrained when taken to and from court; that he was denied adequate outdoor exercise while 20 housed in both the SHU and cellside; and that he was denied adequate access to the dayroom 21 while housed cellside. 22 DATED: December 1, 2009. 23 24 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 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.