Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01308-6/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

 The Court also notes that subsequent to filing this action, Plaintiff filed another action in the

Solano Superior Court that was also removed to this district, Holmes v. Woodford, 2:04-cv-2377-LKK, in

which Defendant is one of 10 named defendants. Plaintiff raises the same issues in that action as are

raised in this action. Defendant has filed a motion to stay proceedings in that case pending a

determination of the outcome in this case.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESHANE J. HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STEVE TEER,

Defendant.

No. 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the California Superior Court, Solano County. The action was removed to

this Court and referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local General Order No. 262.1

On August 29, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, 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. 

Distilled to their essence, Plaintiff’s objections are basically two-fold: (1) that the

Magistrate Judge misapplied the standard to be applied to a motion for summary judgment; and

(2) that the comment Plaintiff “would do better in the trade as a black female” exhibited

sufficient racial bias to warrant submission to the jury. In addition, Plaintiff requests the Court

take judicial notice of the records of a hearing before the California Department of Industrial

Relations. There being no objection, the Court will grant the request to take judicial notice.

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 55 Filed 02/08/08 Page 1 of 4
2

 The Magistrate Judge has thoroughly discussed the pertinent facts and issues and the discussion

of the facts and issues in this order is limited to those relevant to the objections raised and to put them in

context.

ORDER

Holmes v. Teer, 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB 2

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, with particular attention to those portions relevant or pertinent to the objections raised, the

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.2

Plaintiff misconstrues the standard to be applied in ruling on a motion for summary

judgment. It is true that the moving party, in this case the Defendant, has the burden of

establishing a lack of a triable issue of fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–323

(1986). It is also true the evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed and all justifiable

inferences are drawn in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49

(1986). In order to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists, a nonmoving plaintiff must

introduce probative evidence that establishes the elements of the complaint. Id. Material facts

are those which may affect the outcome of the case. Id. A dispute as to a material fact is

genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving

party. Id. However, there is no genuine issue of fact if, on the record taken as a whole, a

rational trier of fact could not find in favor of the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 

In general, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court may not weigh the

evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424

F.3d 1027, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005). Instead, it generally accepts as true statements made under

oath. Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005). However, this rule does not apply

to conclusory statements unsupported by underlying facts. Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 387

(9th Cir. 1990). Nor may the court draw unreasonable inferences from the evidence. See

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); McLaughlin v. Liu, 849

F.2d 1205, 1207–1209 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 55 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 4
3

 The other statement, that Defendant “would not authorize a jail-house electrician,” while

perhaps indicative of a personal animosity towards Plaintiff, is racially neutral.

ORDER

Holmes v. Teer, 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB 3

In this case, the sole direct evidence of racial bias is the statement Plaintiff “would do

better in the trade as a black female.”3

 No matter how one views that comment, it is not

probative of the fact the Defendant harbored any racial animus towards blacks; at best, from

Plaintiff’s perspective, it is ambiguous. If it were unambiguous, even though isolated, it would

be sufficient to withstand Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Dominquez-Curry,

424 F.23d at 1039. While a rational jury may logically infer that Defendant disliked Plaintiff

and was hostile towards him, no rational jury could reasonably infer that it was based upon a

racial animus.

 Plaintiff offered no other direct evidence that Defendant acted out of racial animus. To

establish a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792 (1973), Plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was

qualified for the position; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4)

similarly situated prisoners of other races were treated more favorably. There does not appear to

be any dispute that the first three elements are present. It is on the fourth element that Plaintiff’s 

case flounders. It is undisputed that the work crew from which Plaintiff alleges he was

wrongfully excluded consisted of two Caucasians, another Afro-American, and a Hispanic. 

Subsequently, another Caucasian was added to the crew. While Plaintiff alleges that the new

member was less qualified, Plaintiff offers no evidence to support his conclusory statement. 

Moreover, evidence submitted by Plaintiff shows that Defendant was dissatisfied with Plaintiff’s

work ethic and safety concerns. While Plaintiff contends that the alternative, nondiscriminatory

reasons given are merely pre-textual, Plaintiff provides no evidence that even tangentially

supports his conclusory statement.

The Court has reviewed the transcript of the proceedings before the California

Department of Industrial Relations. There is nothing in that transcript that supports Plaintiff’s

federal claims. The testimony in those proceedings addresses the manner in which the

apprenticeship program is administered and Plaintiff’s rights, if any, under an indentured

apprenticeship program, a matter of state contract and labor relations law. It does not mention

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 55 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 4
ORDER

Holmes v. Teer, 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB 4

race. On the issue of discrimination, the most that could be said is that Defendant had a bias

against the prison’s apprenticeship program per se, not that the bias was racially motivated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the proceedings before the

California Department of Industrial Relations is GRANTED;

2. Except as modified herein, the Findings and Recommendations filed August 29, 2007,

are adopted; 

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 31 is GRANTED in part, and

DENIED, in part;

4. All federal claims raised in the Complaint are DISMISSED;

5. To the extent the Complaint raises issues of state law, the Court declines to exercise its

supplemental jurisdiction and the case is remanded to the California Superior Court, Solano

County; and

6. The Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment accordingly.

Dated: February 8, 2008

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 55 Filed 02/08/08 Page 4 of 4