Opinion
2:20-cv-01714 WBS DB P
02-16-2023
ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, Plaintiff, v. T. TRAN, Defendant.
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 January 12, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Both plaintiff and defendant have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Specifically, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim that, among other things, (1) defendant's refusal to provide plaintiff with his medication outside the morning or afternoon distribution time was consistent with the doctor's written prescription; (2) defendant's refusal to do so on a single instance was not deliberate difference; and (3) there is no evidence that a substantial risk of serious harm would result if plaintiff did not receive his medication outside the prescribed time frame. Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim.
Similarly, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination that summary judgment should be denied as to plaintiff's retaliation claim. Here, defendant claims that plaintiff acted abusively towards him. Assuming this is true, issuing a Rules Violation Report would be appropriate. However, plaintiff has presented evidence in the form of his own statement that he did not act abusively and that defendant's Rules Violation Report claiming he did was false. While defendant did not submit a separate sworn declaration, he denied being verbally abusive in his opposition and included at the end of the opposition a declaration sworn under penalty of perjury stating that all his statements made in the opposition were true and correct. (Docket No. 44 at 39, 55.) 2
Unfortunately, no witnesses have substantiated either account. The court cannot determine on summary judgment which account is more credible and thus cannot determine whether defendant's Rules Violation Report was appropriate. Based on this dispute as to the parties' conduct, summary judgment on the retaliation claim will be denied.
The court notes that plaintiff was eventually found guilty of a rules violation (see Docket No. 44 at 159). Nevertheless, the court is unaware of any written or oral decision setting forth the reasoning for such a determination, and defendant provides no authority setting forth what weight, if any, should be given to such a determination.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The parties' objections are OVERRULED;
2. The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2023, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
3. Tran's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 43) is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that judgment shall be entered in Tran's favor on the claim under the Eighth Amendment, and the motion is DENIED in all other respects. 3