Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790-21/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

Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on January 9, 2012, against Defendants LaTraille and Taber1

for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment and assault and battery under state law. 

On August 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on June 7, 2013, be granted in part and denied in 

part as follows: (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment and on Plaintiff’s claim of assault and battery in violation of 

state law be denied; (2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation 

in violation of the First Amendment be granted; and (3) Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity on 

Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on 

the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days after

service. (ECF No. 111.) On September 22, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ request for an 

 

1

Defendants were erroneously sued as “D. Latraille” and “J. Tabor” in the first amended complaint. 

LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. LATRAILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01790-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 56, 87)

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 90 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 2
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

extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Defendants’ objections were 

due on or before October 10, 2014. No objections have been filed. 

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, 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 issued on August 20, 2014, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on June 7, 2013, is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment and on Plaintiff’s claim of assault and battery in 

violation of state law is DENIED;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment is GRANTED;

c. Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force is 

DENIED; 

3. This matter shall be set for jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment and assault and battery under state law against Defendants 

LaTraille and Taber; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent 

with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 90 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2