Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01680-8/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

 Defendants have filed their own summary judgment motion, which will be addressed

separately.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZURI S. YOUNG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1680 LKK KJM P

vs.

K.M. CHASTAIN, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983; he has paid the filing fee. He has filed a motion for summary judgment;

defendants have not opposed the motion.1

I. Motion For Summary Judgment 

A. Standards Under Rule 56

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists “no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “[W]here the

nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary

judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’” Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered,

after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that

party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof

concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts

immaterial.” Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as

whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary

judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to

establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the

allegations or denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the

form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the

dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party

must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome

of the suit under the governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.

1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

return a verdict for the nonmoving party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433,

1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party

need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the

claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing

versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary

judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a

genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory

committee’s note on 1963 amendments).

B. Plaintiff’s Motion

In the verified complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Blackburn, Green and

Flint ordered him to be placed in administrative segregation for his own safety, even though he

did not have enemies on C-Yard. Complaint (Compl.) at 5. This action was based on false

information and was taken in retaliation for his complaints of and investigations into misconduct. 

Compl. at 6-7. Defendants Lea and Chastain then ordered him released to B-Yard, even though

they were aware he had enemies on that yard. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that “defendant(s) can not, and will not present any genuine

issue(s) of material facts warranting trial. They can not, and will not dispute, ‘their own

documents.’” Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) at 3. He alleges that the evidence submitted

in support of the complaint “proves and supports plaintiff(s) claims. . .,” MSJ at 2, but does not

direct the court’s attention to particular documents submitted with the complaint. He has

supported the summary judgment motion with his own affidavit, in which alleges he was

“arbitrarily, capriciously, maliciously, punitively placed in CSP-Sac IV’s administrative

segregation . . . based on defendants generated confidential information,” all of which has been

used as a pretext to retaliate “and punish plaintiff for doing what the law allows him to do.” MSJ

at 5. 

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Plaintiff’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient support for his motion. See

Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. of America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1145 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover,

his reliance generally on the documents in support of his complaint also is insufficient. Plaintiff

fails to identify those documents he believes demonstrate the conclusive nature of his case; the

court is not required to search the record to develop support for plaintiff’s motion. Schneider v.

TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 990 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991). 

II. Sanctions

On April 26, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to show cause why he should not be

subject to monetary sanctions for filing an essentially duplicate motion, which the court

previously had found to be frivolous. Plaintiff has not responded. Accordingly, the court will

direct plaintiff to pay $50.00 to the court’s unallocated fund within thirty days of the date of this

order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is directed to pay $50.00 to the court’s unallocated fund within thirty

days of the date of this order. Failure to comply may result in an order recommending dismissal

of this action. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Division of this court.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

be denied.

////

/////

////

////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/31/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: July 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

youn1680.57

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/31/06 Page 5 of 5