Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02708/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02708-14/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL ANTHONY HOLLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2708 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 31, 2007, 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. 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 72-304,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court adopts the findings and recommendations in part and declines to adopt them in part.

The court declines to adopt them insofar as they recommend granting defendants' motion

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 84 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation claim. Although defendants expressed concerns

about plaintiff’s work performance prior to his first grievance filed on January 27, 2004, there is

still a reasonable dispute as to whether this would have been sufficient to warrant a reduction in

pay, or whether plaintiff's grievance was the actual cause of the pay reduction. Similarly,

although defendants may have previously considered terminating plaintiff on the basis of this

earlier work performance, there is also a reasonable dispute as to whether and to what extent his

grievances played a role in their ultimate decision. Furthermore, it is worth bearing in mind that

"[q]uestions involving a person’s state of mind . . . are generally factual issues inappropriate for

resolution by summary judgment.” Braxton-Secret v. A.H. Robins Co., 769 F.2d 528, 531 (9th

Cir. 1985).

For similar reasons, the court denies summary judgment on the equal protection claim. If

defendants acted in retaliation for plaintiff's grievances, there would be no legitimate state

interest behind defendants' conduct. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff

was treated differently than similarly situated individuals working at the Prison Industry

Authority.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 31, 2007, are adopted except with

respect to the retaliation and equal protection claims;

2. Defendants’ September 28, 2006, motion for summary judgment is granted in part and

denied in part; and

3. The motion for summary judgment is granted as to defendant Carey.

DATED: September 27, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 84 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2