Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-16/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

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND STAYING ACTION

PENDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

(Docs. 40 and 69)

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. This action is proceeding against Defendants Palmer, Rivera,

and Lopez on Plaintiff’s claim that while he was at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California,

Defendant Palmer used excessive physical force against him and Defendants Rivera andLopez failed

to intervene, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States

Constitution. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 7, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties

that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The

parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 71 Filed 03/19/12 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on February 7, 2012, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summaryjudgment, filed on August 30, 2011, is GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a.. Defendants’ motion for a finding that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim arising

out of the use of pepper spray is barred by the favorable termination rule is

GRANTED and the claim is dismissed; and

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force

claim arising out of being kicked and stomped once handcuffed is DENIED;

and

3. This action is stayed pending the results of the settlement conference set for April 20,

2012, before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 71 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2