Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Hardin
Defendant
Vance Edward Johnson
Plaintiff
Sweeney
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SWEENEY and J. HARDIN, 

Defendants. 

No. 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Doc. Nos. 15, 23) 

 Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson is appearing 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 302. On October 13, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued 

findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be 

granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required be denied as to plaintiff’s claim against 

defendant Sweeney for failure to provide mailing envelopes in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising 

of his First Amendment right, and granted as to all other claims of retaliation brought by plaintiff 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 53 Filed 07/29/16 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

against defendants Sweeney and Harden. Those findings and recommendations were served on 

the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days of service. 

Defendants filed objections, in light of the mailbox rule, on November 10, 2015, and plaintiff’s 

objections were received by the court on November 23, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 24, 26.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the parties’ 

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. 

In their objections, defendants submit they “did not fully address the Mail Appeal in their 

moving papers in good faith because the legal mail issue had been screened out of the Complaint 

and was unrelated to the issue of retaliation.” (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) “Defendants request this Court 

allow them to submit the additional briefing and evidence in support of their Motion for Summary 

Judgment on the Mail Appeal contained herein.” (Id. at 3.) The undersigned does not agree that 

plaintiff’s retaliation claim relating to the mail appeal was screened out by the magistrate judge in 

his December 22, 2014 screening order finding service of the complaint appropriate. (See Doc. 

No. 8.) In that screening order, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s complaint stated a First 

Amendment claim of retaliation against defendants Sweeney and J. Hardin. (Id. at 1.) Indeed, 

defendants acknowledge in their motion for summary judgment that plaintiff’s complaint: (1) 

“alleges that on January 1, 2014, Defendant Sweeney ‘ransacked’ Plaintiff’s cell, threw away 

legal paperwork, opened personal hygiene items, stepped on food, spit in his prayer oil and 

confiscated his flat screen TV;” and (2) “alleges Defendant Sweeney refused to provide indigent 

state envelopes to Plaintiff so he could mail his attorney information regarding Correctional 

Officer White’s alleged actions.” (Doc. No. 15-2 at 2.) 

With their objections, defendants submit evidence that plaintiff did not administratively 

exhaust his retaliation claim relating to the mail appeal issue and argue that plaintiff “will have 

the opportunity to respond to Defendants’ objections and legal authority in his response to 

Defendants’ objections.” (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) However, the court finds the prudent approach is to 

deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment as it relates to this claim without prejudice to 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 53 Filed 07/29/16 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

defendants re-noticing and re-filing a motion for summary judgment directed at the argument now 

raised by defendants. By proceeding in this way, proper briefing by both sides on the issue will 

be received. 

Plaintiff has also submitted objections to the findings and recommendations regarding his 

remaining claims. (See Doc. No. 26.) In support of his objections, plaintiff argues that the 

findings and recommendations failed to account for certain evidence and relied on allegedly false 

testimony. Plaintiff’s evidence, however, does not resolve the deficiencies described in the 

findings and recommendations. For example, plaintiff states that additional discovery reveals a 

second failure of the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System. (Id. at 7–8.) Plaintiff alleges that 

this failure caused the loss of his inmate appeal of the cancellation decision regarding PVSP Log 

No. 14-00085, purportedly dated March 20, 2014. (Id.; see also Doc. No. 18 at 40–42.) Because 

plaintiff fails to adequately lay a foundation for this inmate appeal or to describe the 

circumstances surrounding the submission of the alleged inmate appeal, the court finds summary 

judgment to be warranted. 

 Accordingly, 

1. The October 13, 2015 findings and recommendations are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, defendant Sweeney may 

re-file an exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s mail 

appeal retaliation claim against defendant Sweeney; and

4. All other claims and defendant Harden are dismissed from the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 29, 2016 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 53 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 3