(PC) Johnson, et al v. Runnel, et al, No. 2:2004cv00776 - Document 254 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/11/2013 ORDERING that the 248 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Pribble, Wilbur, Kelsey, Briddle, St. Andre, Weaver, Gower, Bates, Brown , and Arnold are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff's claim alleging that defendant Von Rader subjected him to excessive force on 12/31/2002 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhau st administrative remedies. Plaintiff's claim alleging that defendant Houghland punched, grabbed, and slammed plaintiff against a wall on 12/312002 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff' s claim alleging that defendant Chapman "was a bystander in tacit authorization and refused to intervene" as other defendants punched, grabbed, and slammed plaintiff into a wall on 12/31/2002 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to e xhaust administrative remedies. Summary adjudication of plaintiff's claims that defendants Bigford, Martinez, Little, and Doyle deprived plaintiff of warm food, yard exercise, phone calls, paper, pen, request slips, complaint forms, and medic al care between 12/31/2002 and 1/9/2003 is GRANTED in favor of defendants. Summary adjudication of plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages against defendants Bigford, Martinez, Little, and Doyle is GRANTED in favor of defendants. Summary adjudication of plaintiff's claims against defendant Hicks is GRANTED in her favor. Defendants' requests for summary adjudication and/or dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims are DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Johnson, et al v. Runnel, et al Doc. 254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:04-cv-776-TLN-EFB P v. ORDER D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 30, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After an extension of time, 23 plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 26 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 27 proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2013, are adopted in full. 3 2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Pribble, Wilbur, Kelsey, Briddle, St. Andre, 4 Weaver, Gower, Bates, Brown, and Arnold are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust 5 administrative remedies. 3. Plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendant Von Rader subjected him to excessive force 6 7 on December 31, 2002 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative 8 remedies. 4. Plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendant Houghland punched, grabbed, and slammed 9 10 plaintiff against a wall on December 31, 2002 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to 11 exhaust administrative remedies. 12 5. Plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendant Chapman “was a bystander in tacit 13 authorization and refused to intervene” as other defendants punched, grabbed, and slammed 14 plaintiff into a wall on December 31, 2002 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust 15 administrative remedies. 16 6. Summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claims that defendants Bigford, Martinez, Little, 17 and Doyle deprived plaintiff of warm food, yard exercise, phone calls, paper, pen, request slips, 18 complaint forms, and medical care between December 31, 2002 and January 9, 2003 is granted 19 in favor of defendants. 7. Summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claims for compensatory damages against 20 21 defendants Bigford, Martinez, Little, and Doyle is granted in favor of defendants. 8. Summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Hicks is granted in her 22 23 24 25 favor. 9. Defendants’ requests for summary adjudication and/or dismissal of plaintiff’s remaining claims are denied. 26 So ordered. 27 Dated: December 11, 2013 28 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.
