Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05125/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05125-12/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

JOHN R. MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

W. SHAW, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05125-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 81)

ORDER REGARDING PARTIAL MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 58, 61)

John R. Martinez (“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 September 11, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fifteen (15)

days. On September 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:03-cv-05125-OWW -SMS Document 84 Filed 11/16/06 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 11,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with

respect to the Due Process claim concerning the procedures used,

the retaliation claim against all Defendants for Plaintiff’s

validation as a gang member, and the excessive force in

retaliation claim against Defendant Shaw;

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED with

respect to the insufficiency of the evidence used to validate

Plaintiff in violation of Due Process, and the vagueness and

overbreadth claim concerning the applicable California

regulation; and,

4. Defendants are afforded the opportunity to file a

second Motion for Summary Judgment in order to cure deficiencies

outlined in the Findings and Recommendations, within thirty (30)

days from the date of service of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05125-OWW -SMS Document 84 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2