Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006-23/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. WILBER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00006-SKO (PC)

ORDER AMENDING ORDER OF APRIL 29, 

2014, AND CLARIFYING SUMMARY OF 

CLAIMS PROCEEDING TO TRIAL

(Doc. 96)

This action is set for jury trial on June 6, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. before the undersigned. 

During the telephonic trial setting hearing held on December 19, 2014, Defendants’ counsel 

notified the Court of an inconsistency relating to the retaliation claim against Defendant 

Hernandez contained in (1) the findings and recommendations addressing Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, filed on March 12, 2014, and (2) the order adopting the findings and 

recommendations in full by the then-assigned district judge, filed on April 29, 2014.1 (Docs. 87, 

96). The Court notified the parties it would review the record and issue an order of clarification if 

necessary.

Upon review, the Court has determined that there is an error in the sections of (1) the 

findings and recommendations and (2) the order adopting as to the action proceeding to trial 

against Defendant Hernandez for retaliation arising out of the use of force on August 25, 2007. 

With respect to the incident on August 25, 2007, the undersigned determined that (1) Defendants 

 

1 This is now a consent case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 106.)

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 129 Filed 12/19/14 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

Vikjord and Hernandez were not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim; (2) Defendant Vikijord was not entitled to summary judgment on the 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim; and (3) Defendant Hernandez was entitled to 

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim given the absence of any 

“evidence that he took adverse action against Plaintiff during the escort in retaliation for Plaintiff’s 

engagement in lawsuits and/or filing grievances.” (Doc. 87, F&R, 30:2-5, 30:14-19, & 42:8:-13). 

Given the Court’s determination, which was also articulated in the final recommendation and in 

the order adopting the findings and recommendations, the inclusion of Defendant Hernandez in the 

sentence summarizing the claims which are proceeding to trial is attributable to an inadvertent 

error. (Doc. 87, F&R, 46:10-12 & 46:17-21; Doc. 96, Order, 3:5-7 & 3:12-17.)

Accordingly, the order filed on April 29, 2014, is HEREBY AMENDED to reflect that this 

matter is proceeding to jury trial on Plaintiff’s (1) Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against Defendants Vikjord and Hernandez, (2) First Amendment retaliation claim against 

Defendant Vikjord arising out of the use of force on August 25, 2007, and (3) First Amendment 

retaliation claim against Defendants Frescura and Price arising out of the use of force on or around 

February 18, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 129 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 2