Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02318/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02318-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD P. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-2318 W (RBB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[DOC. 117], (2) GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

91], AND (3) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

92]

vs.

T. ARMSTRONG, et al., 

Defendants.

On December 12, 2008, Plaintiff Stanford Paul Bryant, a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 [Doc. 1]. On March 3, 2009, he filed a First Amended Complaint [Doc. 3]. The

ten named Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amedned Complaint [Doc.

Nos. 15, 18]. This Court issued an order adopting Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks’

Report and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [Doc. Nos. 27, 37].

On June 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 39]. 

All ten Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 40],

-1- 8cv2318w

Case 3:08-cv-02318-JLS-RBB Document 119 Filed 03/11/13 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

which was granted in part and denied in part [Doc. Nos. 46-47]. The six remaining

Defendants– Armstrong, Catlett, Janda, Lizarraga, Ochoa, and Trujillo– filed their

Answer [Doc. No. 49]. 

On December 23, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment

[Doc. No. 91]. On the same day, Plaintiff filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment

[Doc. No. 92]. Plaintiff and Defendants both oppose [Doc. No. 96, 101]. On August

3, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a Report and

Recommendation(the “Report”) recommending that Defendants’ Motionfor Summary

Judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Report 3[Doc. 117].) The Report also

recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement be denied. (Id.) In

addition, the Report ordered the parties to file written objections by August 29, 2012,

and any reply to the objections by September 12, 2012. (Id.) On August 29, 2012,

Defendants filed an Objection to the Report’s recommendations [Doc. 118]. 

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), the Court “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).

Having conducted a de novo review of the Report, the Court concludes that Judge

Brooks issued an accurate Report and well-reasoned recommendation that the

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS

the Report [Doc. No. 117] in its entirety, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 91], DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 92], and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. With respect to the equal protection cause of action in count one against

Defendant Armstrong on a class-of-one theory, Defendant Armstrong’s

Motion for Summary Judgement is GRANTED.

-2- 8cv2318w

Case 3:08-cv-02318-JLS-RBB Document 119 Filed 03/11/13 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

2. With respect to the retaliation cause of action in count three, Defendant

Armstrong’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

3. With respect to the retaliation cause of action in count three, Defendant

Ochoa’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

4. With respect to the retaliation cause of action in count three, Defendant

Janda’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

5. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in all other respects is

DENIED.

6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 11, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

-3- 8cv2318w

Case 3:08-cv-02318-JLS-RBB Document 119 Filed 03/11/13 Page 3 of 3