Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05248/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05248-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WALTERS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O P. DOAN, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05248-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 34 and 45)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Michael Walters (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local Rule 72-302.

On August 29, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were served

on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within thirty days. On September 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed an

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-05248-AWI-LJO Document 48 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 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

2

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

and Local Rule 73-305, 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.

In his objections, Plaintiff makes legal arguments and

provides evidence not previously given to the court. In general,

a new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings

and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633,

638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United

States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual

assertions that which could have been but were not presented to the

Magistrate Judge should be given no consideration when the court is

deciding whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations Sundaram v.

County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam

System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9

(C.D.Cal. 1997). In this case, Plaintiff states that he was

previously being assisted by an inmate who was taking advantage of

him, and Plaintiff asks the court to liberally construe his

pleadings because of his pro se incarcerated status. Because it

does not change the outcome, in the interests of justice, the court

has reviewed the additional evidence and arguments made in the

objections.

Plaintiff contends that any correctional officer should have

known placing an inmate from the sensitive needs yard (“SNY”) with

an inmate from general population would result in an attack.

Plaintiff states that inmates from the SNY are usually assaulted

when placed with inmates from general population. The problem

Case 1:04-cv-05248-AWI-LJO Document 48 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 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

3

with this assertion is that on a motion for summary judgement

Plaintiff can no longer rely upon mere allegations or denials in

his pleadings; Plaintiff must tender evidence to prove specific

facts. Rule 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.11 (1986). Plaintiff offers no evidence

that inmates from SNY are in fact usually assaulted or that

Defendants knew this. Plaintiff’s own assertion that this is true

is not admissible because Plaintiff has failed to show how he has

personal knowledge of whether inmates from SNY are usually

assaulted. Thus, this contention does not change the outcome of

Defendants’ motion.

Plaintiff’s evidence showing Plaintiff’s injuries also does

not assist Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge in the Findings and

Recommendations did not base his conclusion on Plaintiff’s lack of

injuries. Thus, the fact Plaintiff’s injuries may have been

significant does not show deliberate indifference by Defendants.

Finally, the fact Defendants would have known Plaintiff was a

validated Mexican Mafia dropout if they had looked at Plaintiff’s

file does not show deliberate indifference by Defendants. 

Plaintiff has no evidence Defendants looked at Plaintiff’s and

Velasquez’s files, Defendants, as opposed to other officers, were

required to review Plaintiff’s and Velasquez’s files prior to

transfer, or that Velasquez’s file contains information showing

that Velasquez has an affiliation with the Mexican Mafia or

otherwise would pose a threat to Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff

must provide evidence to create a disputed issue of fact on

Defendants’ deliberate indifference, the court finds that the

additional arguments and evidence in the objections do not provide

Case 1:04-cv-05248-AWI-LJO Document 48 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 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

4

a basis to not adopt the Findings and Recommendations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 29, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed April 20,

2006, is GRANTED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for

defendants and against plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05248-AWI-LJO Document 48 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 4