Buckley v. Alameida

Full title: ANTONIO C. BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. ALAMEIDA, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 25, 2012

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05688-OWW-GBC PC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05688-OWW-GBC PC

01-25-2012

ANTONIO C. BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. ALAMEIDA, et al., Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 151)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO RE-BRIEF ONE ISSUE

SIXTY DAY DEADLINE

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA")). 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 September 13, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 126.

On December 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which recommended granting in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment and recommended re-briefing on an additional issue. Doc. 151. The Magistrate Judge gave the parties thirty days to file objections. Doc. 151. The thirty-day period has expired, and neither party has not filed any objections.

II. Conclusion and Order

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on December 20, 2011, is adopted in full (Doc. 151);
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment filed on September 13, 2010, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (Doc. 126) as follows:

a. granted as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendants Howard, Johnson, Barker, Chappel, Papac, Meadors, and Winett based on a theory of retaliatory repeated routine pat-down searches;
b. granted as to Plaintiff's RLUIPA and Free Exercise claims against Defendants Winett, Meadors, Barker, and Woodley regarding the confiscation of Plaintiff's kosher food Package;
c. granted as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendants Calderon, Winett, Meadors, Papac, Howard, Johnson, Vo, and Kordan regarding the x-ray and contraband watch;
d. granted as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Reed, Mack, and Traynham for implementing the contraband watch procedure;
e. denied as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Reed, Mack, and Traynham for placing Plaintiff in a cell that was covered in feces;
f. denied as to Plaintiff's Equal Protection claim against Defendants Chappel and Barker for the confiscated menorah and candles;

3. Within sixty days (60) of service of this order, Defendants shall submit a supplemental motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendants Howard, Winnett, Papac, Calderon and Kordan violated the Eighth amendment by maliciously implementing a contraband search without a valid penological interest or file notice of their desire to go to trial on the issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE