Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-4/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

SCOTT E. STEARNS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:00-06331-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 302)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc.261)

ORDER THAT ACTION PROCEED ON

REMAINING CLAIM

Plaintiff, Scott E. Stearns (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 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 72-302.

On July 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the court grant Defendants’

motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s due process claim. The

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On August 3, 2005 and August 12, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections and exhibits to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 312 Filed 08/30/05 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s

primary objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation is that prison officials should not have found

that Plaintiff is an associate of the prison gang Nazi Low

Riders. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment if there was

some evidence to support prison officials’ determination

regarding Plaintiff’s gang affiliation. Superintendent, Mass.

Correctional Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1985). 

Plaintiff’s arguments that prison officials should not have taken

the inference that Plaintiff was a gang associate based on the

submitted evidence does not created a disputed issue of fact on

the existence of some evidence. Further, even assuming one of

the pieces of evidence was later found unreliable does not change

the fact there was other evidence supporting the finding. The

some evidence standard does not require a particular number of

pieces of evidence. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 29, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s

due process claim, filed September 27, 2004, is GRANTED;

4. This action SHALL proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment failure to protect claim against defendant Flores; and

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 312 Filed 08/30/05 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

5. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 312 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 3