Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00373/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00373-32/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 Allen Hammler is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on May 13, 2020.

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding against Defendants Gamboa, Peterson, Garza, Saucedo, Uhlik, and 

Clark for violation of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

On April 7, 2020, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On April 8, 2020, the 

Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. 

ALLEN HAMMLER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED

[ECF No. 88]

Case 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 4
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

As previously stated, on May 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary 

judgment. Defendants filed an opposition on June 3, 2020. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time 

to do so has expired. Local Rule 230(l). 

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the court shall grant summary judgment if 

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v. 

U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed 

or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including 

but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials 

cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot 

produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). 

The court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to 

do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th 

Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, he must 

affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for him. Soremekun v. 

Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007).

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court may not make credibility 

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, id., and it must draw all inferences in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes 

entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 

942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The court determines only whether there is 

a genuine issue for trial. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

Case 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 4
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

B. Allegations of Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that he follows a Rastafarian faith which prohibits the consumption of raw meat.

Plaintiff is a participant in CDCR’s religious diet program and receives kosher meals. Plaintiff claims 

that he received raw meat in his meals on several occasions at Corcoran and has alerted Defendants to 

the problem, but he continues to receive raw meat in his meals. Plaintiff contends that because he is 

being provided only raw meat, which he is prohibited from eating due to his religious beliefs, he is 

unable to eat and is becoming sick and weak. 

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment recites the allegations in his complaint regarding

being served raw meat which is contrary to his religious beliefs. 

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as procedurally and 

substantively deficient because it does not contain a statement of undisputed facts with citations to 

support evidence, or set forth any legal authority establishing the elements of his claims, nor submit 

any evidence meeting that burden. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is defective in that Plaintiff’s undisputed facts are 

simply assertions of brief legal conclusions. (ECF No. 88.) Local Rule 260(a), specifically requires 

that “[e]ach motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be accompanied by a 

‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific material relied 

upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, 

interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied upon to establish that fact.” Although 

Plaintiff sets forth three statements of undisputed facts, the statements are broad legal conclusions, and 

not specific statements of fact. Further, Plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts fails to cite to any 

pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory, answer, admission, or other document relied upon to 

establish the “facts” he claims are undisputed. Thus, Plaintiff, as the moving party, has failed to 

produce evidence to meet his initial burden of proof, and the burden therefore has not shifted to 

Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, without 

prejudice. 

Case 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 4
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

III.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, filed on May 13, 2020, be denied, without prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 4