Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00804-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JIMMY R. ST. CLAIR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STAN SCHLACHTER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-0804 KJM DAD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Because defendant has never 

responded to the court’s order directing filing of the form to indicate consent or not, the case has 

now been assigned to the undersigned as presiding judge. See ECF 16. 

 On January 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00804-KJM-DB Document 37 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 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

court adopts the magistrate judge’s ultimate recommendations but with the clarification provided 

below. Specifically, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment will be denied without 

prejudice. 

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has “held consistently 

that courts should construe liberally motion papers and pleadings filed by pro se inmates and 

should avoid applying summary judgment rules strictly.” Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 

1150 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s declaration filed with his motion for summary judgment and his 

verified complaint, referred to in the declaration, are sufficient evidence of the alleged assault by 

defendant Schlacter to shift the burden to defendant to bring forth evidence in opposition to the 

material averments of those documents. See, e.g., Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-1400 

(9th Cir. 1998). In opposing the motion, defendant elected not to tender such evidence and 

instead chose to argue that plaintiff’s failure to specifically indicate in his declaration that the 

material facts of the alleged assault are undisputed or to include those averments in his separate 

statement of undisputed facts is sufficient, without more, to defeat summary judgment. 

Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s declaration is insufficient without corroboration to establish 

material facts of the alleged assault. For the reasons set forth here, neither of these contentions 

has merit. 

 In sum, the court is faced with a record where there is no evidence tendered in 

opposition to the material averments of plaintiff’s declaration and his verified complaint. As the 

magistrate judge notes, in his opposition to the motion defendant did request an opportunity to 

provide supplemental briefing and evidence if the court considered “Plaintiff’s declaration as 

setting forth material facts.” ECF No. 35 at 8 n.5 (quoting Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 28 at 6). This 

court’s review of the record gives rise to a substantial inference that defendant is likely, if given 

another opportunity, to come forward with such evidence. Defendant has denied all material 

averments of the complaint in his answer; the answer however is not verified and therefore has no 

evidentiary value on summary judgment. See ECF No. 19. In addition, defendant did not file his 

own motion for summary judgment within the time originally set by the magistrate judge for 

dispositive motions in this action. From this, the court concludes that key facts material to 

Case 2:13-cv-00804-KJM-DB Document 37 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 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 

3

plaintiff’s claim are likely in dispute. In the interests of judicial economy and justice, the court 

will deny plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. The parties will be 

given a period of thirty days in which to meet and confer to determine whether plaintiff’s motion 

for partial summary judgment should be renewed or, instead, whether this action should proceed 

to pretrial conference and jury trial. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The recommendations filed January 6, 2015 are adopted with the clarification 

provided in this order; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 27) is denied 

without prejudice; 

 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order the parties shall meet and confer 

and file a joint statement setting forth their views on whether plaintiff’s motion for partial 

summary judgment should be renewed or, instead, whether this action should proceed to pretrial 

conference and jury trial. 

DATED: March 30, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00804-KJM-DB Document 37 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 3