Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499-26/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

 The Magistrate Judge had previously granted the plaintiff an extension of time to file

his opposition. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. CIV S-05-1499-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

alleged violations of his rights under the First and Eighth Amendments. 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 October 19, 2007, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s

claims and on December 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion.1

 The

Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that were served on the plaintiff and that

contained notice to the plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 97 Filed 02/26/08 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

be filed within twenty days. The plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations, including an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on a deposition by

Dr. Gabriel Borges offered to support defendants’ motion. The court has reviewed the file. As

explained below, the court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations. 

The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the defendants’ motion, basing the

recommendation in part on the declaration of Dr. Gabriel Borges offered in support of the

defendants’ motion. See Findings and Recommendations, January 17, 2008, at 8, 13. Dr. Borges’

declaration, however, is not declared to be true under penalty of perjury and therefore it cannot

be relied upon by the court. Motions for summary judgment may be supported by affidavits or

declarations sworn to be true under penalty of perjury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); United States for

Use and Benefit of Austin v. W. Elec. Co., 337 F.2d 568, 574-75 (9th Cir. 1964); see also 28

U.S.C. 1746 (unsworn declarations must be “subscribed” by the declarant “as true under penalty

of perjury”). Here, Dr. Borges did not swear under penalty of perjury that the statements made in

his declaration were true; instead, he only “declare[d] under penalty of perjury that the . . .

declaration was executed” on a particular date. See Declaration of Dr. Gabriel Borges In Support

of Motion for Summary Judgment. Consequently, his declaration has no evidentiary force. The

court cannot adopt those findings of the Magistrate Judge that were based on this declaration, nor

can it adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for the disposition of the motion, as its

recommendation was influenced by Dr. Borges’ statements.

For the reasons set forth above, the court DECLINES to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

January 17, 2008 findings and recommendations and REFERS the case to the Magistrate Judge

for proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 25, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 97 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2