(PC) Kahaku v. Wallace ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL KAHAKU, No. 2:20-cv-1807 WBS KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. WALLACE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 13, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Docket No. 50.) 23 Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Docket No. 51.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. Specifically, the court agrees that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to 28 defendants’ motive for the August 9, 2019 search given, inter alia, the fact that defendant 1 | Bustamante was served with plaintiff's complaint on August 2, 2019; the confiscation of 2 | plaintiffs radio and “trashing” of plaintiff's cell during the search; defendant Wallace’s alleged 3 | statement after the search that “This is how we treat rats. Get used to it,”; and the factual dispute 4 | between the parties regarding what role each defendant had, if any, in the search. Under these 5 | circumstances, a reasonable fact finder could determine that Bustamante informed his co- 6 | defendants of plaintiff's lawsuit against him and they knowingly participated in a retaliatory 7 | search as aresult. See, e.g., Bruce v. YlIst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, a 8 || reasonable fact finder could find that, based on this retaliatory motive, there was no legitimate 9 | penological purpose for the search. Id. at 1289-90. Accordingly, the court will deny defendants’ 10 | motion for summary judgment. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED; 13 2. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2023 (Docket No. 50), are adopted in 14 | full; and 15 3. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (Docket No. 45) is DENIED. 16 || Dated: October 5, 2023 / . - 17 tt en Vin ohn 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 || kahal807.806 22 23 24 25 26 27 28