Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05103/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05103-0/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

BRIAN T. HILL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:00-cv-05103-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 117)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 104)

Plaintiff, Brian T. Hill (“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 April 4, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On May 3, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:00-cv-05103-AWI -SMS Document 129 Filed 08/19/05 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 4, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

September 7, 2004, is GRANTED on plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference claims (medical and mental

health) against defendants Galaza, Yee, and Lee;

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim

against defendant Galaza;

4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with

respect to plaintiff’s claim under the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act against defendants Terhune and Galaza;

5. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with

respect to plaintiff’s Access to the Court claim against

defendants Terhune and Galaza;

6. Defendants’ Motion for Summary judgment is DENIED with

respect to plaintiff’s First Amendment claims (telephone access

and possession of catalogs) against defendants Terhune and

Galaza; and,

7. Due to the lack of clarity in the complaint, and

defendants’ misunderstanding of plaintiff’s allegations,

defendants are GRANTED an additional thirty (30) days

Case 1:00-cv-05103-AWI -SMS Document 129 Filed 08/19/05 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

from the date of service of this order within which to file, at

their option, a Second Motion for Summary Judgment, and plaintiff

is GRANTED thirty (30) days therefrom within which to file an

Opposition to the Second Motion for Summary Judgment, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05103-AWI -SMS Document 129 Filed 08/19/05 Page 3 of 3