(PC) Bledsoe v. Martinez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONELL BLEDSOE, No. 2:18-cv-02710-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN 14 SGT. MARTINEZ, et al, PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 154, 167) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Donell Bledsoe is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 28, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 154) be granted in part 23 and denied in part. (Doc. No. 167.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that 24 defendant should be granted summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s false imprisonment 25 claim and claim of retaliation related to an administrative grievance filed by plaintiff on April 19, 26 2017, and denied summary judgment as to plaintiff’s retaliation claim related to events allegedly 27 occurring on April 16, 2017. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties 28 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of 1 service. (Id. at 22–23.) Plaintiff filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 168.) Defendant filed a 2 response to plaintiff’s objections, and plaintiff filed a response thereto. (Doc. Nos. 169, 170.) 3 Plaintiff’s objections are extensive. First, plaintiff objects to the findings and 4 recommendations citing Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. No. 168 at 2– 5 3), but that rule is inapplicable in civil actions such as this one. Plaintiff next contends that 6 defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be denied because it is based on perjurious 7 statements made in defendant’s declaration submitted in support of summary judgment. (Id. at 3– 8 5.) However, plaintiff provides no evidence to substantiate his claim of perjury. Of course, 9 unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient at summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); 10 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.11 (1986) (holding that 11 reliance upon allegations or denials of pleadings is insufficient for summary judgment, and that 12 the party opposing summary judgment must present evidence of specific facts in the form of 13 affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material). Plaintiff next accuses the court of judicial 14 misconduct due to the reassignment of the instant action. (Doc. No. 168 at 6–7.) This accusation 15 is baseless. This action was reassigned to Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on July 27, 16 2022 because formerly-assigned District Judge John A. Mendez took senior status and for no 17 other reason. (Doc. No. 166.) The undersigned was assigned to preside over this action on 18 August 25, 2022 for the purposes of equitable division of cases among district judges and judicial 19 efficiency. (Doc. No. 171.) Such reassignments were not limited to this matter, and have no 20 ulterior motive beyond the administrative purposes stated in the reassignment orders. 21 Furthermore, plaintiff’s claim that the reassignment of his matter was designed to prevent his case 22 from moving forward is obviously unsubstantiated. (Doc. No. 168 at 11.) Plaintiff is reminded 23 that summary judgment requires a much more substantial showing of evidence than required at 24 earlier stages of the litigation, and claims that survived a motion to dismiss may not survive 25 summary judgment based upon the evidence submitted and considered on summary judgment. 26 Plaintiff subsequently reiterates many of the same statements previously made in support of his 27 retaliation claims in his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the 28 magistrate judge already appropriately considered in the pending findings and recommendations. 1 | Gd. at 7-11.) The undersigned finds plaintiff's objections to be unpersuasive. Similarly, plaintiff 2 || reiterates statements made in support of his false imprisonment claim, but his objections do not 3 | address the magistrate judge’s reasoning that the evidence submitted on summary judgment, 4 || including plaintiffs sentence involving imprisonment, do not support the required elements of a 5 | false imprisonment claim. (/d. at 13-17.) Confusingly, the remainder of plaintiff's objections are 6 || an apparent attempt to relitigate his retaliation claim, based on the alleged events of April 16, 7 || 2017, a claim as to which the magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion for 8 || summary judgment be denied. (/d. at 18-29.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 10 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 11 | including plaintiffs objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 12 || by the record and proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 28, 2022 (Doc. No. 167) are 15 adopted in full; 16 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc No. 154) is granted in part, 17 denied in part as follows: 18 a. Summary judgment is granted in defendant’s favor as to the following claims: 19 i. Plaintiff's claim that defendant Martinez retaliated against plaintiff for 20 filing an inmate grievance against Martinez on April 19, 2017; and 21 ii. Plaintiff's putative false imprisonment claim; 22 b. Summary judgment is denied as to plaintiffs claim that defendant Martinez 23 retaliated against plaintiff on April 16, 2017; and 24 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. *° | Dated: _ September 10, 2022 Da A. 2, ayel 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 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