Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Javaughn K. Robinson
Plaintiff
Scottini
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

JAVAUGHN K. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTTINI,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-1641 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is fully briefed. However, in her motion, as 

pointed out by defendant, plaintiff concedes that defendant denies plaintiff’s allegations of sexual 

assault. Indeed, defendant’s declaration confirms he disputes plaintiff’s verified claims in her 

complaint. (ECF No. 33-3.) In her reply, plaintiff again confirms that there are genuine material 

facts at issue. (ECF No. 37 at 1.) 

The Court’s function on a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility 

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a material fact. See T.W. Elec. 

Serv., Inc. V. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot make credibility determinations on summary 

judgment. Rather, to the extent that the parties dispute material facts as to plaintiff’s underlying 

claims, summary judgment is inappropriate. Given the material disputes of fact, as well as 

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 43 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiff’s concession that such material facts are disputed, plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment should be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 

a district judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) be 

denied. 

These findings and recommendations are 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 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 21, 2023

/robi1641.p.msj

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 43 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 2