Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-70/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

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

DAVID ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GIPSON, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Document 187)

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. 

This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation 

of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On February 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 194 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On September 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendants’ motion be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties 

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed 

objections on October 1, 2015, and Defendants filed a reply on October 8, 2015.1

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

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections and Defendants’ reply, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are 

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff’s objections are simply a repeat of the arguments made in his opposition and 

addressed by the Magistrate Judge in the Findings and Recommendations. Although Plaintiff 

contends that the Magistrate Judge erred, recitation of his prior arguments does not establish 

grounds upon which to question the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 

To the extent that Plaintiff faults the Magistrate Judge for indicating that he would not 

search the record for issues of material fact, this does not demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s 

analysis was flawed. First, as the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the Court does not have a 

duty to search the record for triable issues of material fact, even in actions involving pro se 

litigants. In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 386 (9th Cir. 2010). Second, 

the Magistrate Judge concluded that even if Plaintiff provided evidence of his safety concerns, it 

did not factor into the Court’s decision. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 2, 2015, are ADOPTED in 

full;

///

 

1 All documents related to the motion for summary judgment, including the Findings and Recommendations, 

Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ reply, are filed under seal. However, as this order does not discuss any 

sensitive information, it need not be sealed. 

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 194 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 3
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. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Document 165) is GRANTED; and

3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on all claims.

This terminates this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 194 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 3