Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05707/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05707-1/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

LIONEL TATE, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. W. HUSKEY et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-5707-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 58)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 53)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Lionel Tate Sr. (“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 August 2, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. 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 26, 2005, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations. 

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,

including the objections, the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by

Case 1:02-cv-05707-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 4
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

the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not convince the court that the

Magistrate Judge was incorrect in recommending the court grant Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant summary judgment on Plaintiff’s

retaliation claim. In his objections, Plaintiff’s basic argument is that Defendants did not have to

place him in administrative segregation when he filed a complaint about staff misconduct. 

Plaintiff argues the prison regulation relied on by Defendants only applied to a complaint about

misconduct by other inmates and did not apply to a complaint about staff misconduct. Plaintiff

argues that there were other alternative available to Defendants to protect the integrity of the

investigation, such as placing him on another yard, and inmates are not always placed in

administrative segregation when they file a complaint about staff misconduct. 

To make out a prima facie claim of retaliation, Plaintiff has the burden of showing that

retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the "substantial" or "motivating" factor

behind the conduct of Defendants. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429

U.S. 274, 287 (1977). To establish a retaliation claim, a prisoner must show that he was

"retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action does not

advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving order and discipline." Barnett v.

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). When analyzing prison officials’

proffered reasons for the allegedly retaliatory conduct, the court should afford appropriate

deference and flexibility to prison officials. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.1995). 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants placed him in administrative segregation because he filed

a grievance against Lt. Aviles. In their motion, Defendants convincingly point to a legitimate

penological goal in placing Plaintiff in administrative segregation – to protect the integrity of

their investigation into Plaintiff’s allegation of staff misconduct. Further, it is clear that the

administrative segregation lasted only as long as it took to sort out Plaintiff’s allegations. The

burden is thus on Plaintiff to demonstrate “that there were no legitimate correctional purposes

motivating the actions he complains of.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808. Plaintiff's allegations that there

were other ways to protect the integrity of the investigation, such as placing him on another yard,

Case 1:02-cv-05707-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 4
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

may provide circumstantial evidence to support Defendants’ intent to retaliate. However, this

argument does not establish that there was no legitimate penological goal advanced by the

Defendants’ actions. By pointing out a specific failure to create a disputed issue of material

fact, Defendants have shifted the burden to Plaintiff to provide evidence creating such a dispute. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Plaintiff has failed to bear his burden of

showing that there was no legitimate penological goal advanced by Defendants actions. Thus,

summary judgment is appropriate.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding his deprivation of

property claim. Plaintiff argues that his property was originally taken as part of an authorized

taking of Plaintiff’s property when he was housed in administrative segregation. An authorized,

intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process Clause. Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984). However, as explained by the Magistrate Judge,

Plaintiff’s complaint concerns items missing from his property when it was returned to him after

his time in administrative segregation. Plaintiff concedes that he has no evidence the named

Defendants took the missing items. In his objections, Plaintiff contends that his property

deprivation is part of his retaliation claim. Plaintiff argues that officers took his property while

he was in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing a grievance. Again, Plaintiff’s

failure to link the named Defendants with the missing items is fatal to Plaintiff’s claim. Thus,

summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff’s deprivation of property claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 2, 2005, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed December 30, 2004, is

GRANTED;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in accordance with this

Order; and

4. This Order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Case 1:02-cv-05707-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05707-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 09/08/05 Page 4 of 4