Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01789/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01789-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONRELL D. MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PIERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK

ORDER

Plaintiff Monrell D. Murphy (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 16, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 70.) 

Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 73.)

The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Case 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK Document 74 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 70) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED IN PART as 

follows:

a. Defendant Pierce is GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s second claim 

that Defendant Pierce was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious mental 

health needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and such claim is

DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies;

b. Defendant Lebeck is GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that 

Lebeck used excessive force during the second incident, and the claim is

DISMISSED with prejudice;

c. Defendant Pierce is GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force 

claim that he was restrained for six hours after the fourth incident, and the claim is

DISMISSED with prejudice; and

d. Defendants Pierce and Lebeck are GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment retaliation claims as to the first through fourth incidents of 

alleged excessive force, and the retaliation claims based on the alleged 

Ombudsman’s comment are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

In all other respects, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against the unknown mental health clinician are DISMISSED without 

prejudice; and

4. The unidentified prison administrator and Plaintiff’s fourth claim against this unidentified 

prison administrator are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

As a result of this Order, this action proceeds on the following claims: excessive force 

claim against Defendants Pierce, Lebeck and Lopez based on the first incident (initial encounter); 

excessive force claim against Defendant Pierce based on the second incident (initial placement in 

standing room only holding cell); excessive force claim against Defendant Pierce based on the 

Case 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK Document 74 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

third incident (placement in standing room only holding cell); excessive force claim against 

Defendant Pierce based on the fourth incident (pummeling during stress position); and retaliation 

claim against Defendant Pierce based on the fourth incident (falsely charging Plaintiff with two 

rules violations). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 30, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK Document 74 Filed 09/30/24 Page 3 of 3