The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
is defendant Thompson's motion for summary judgment*fn1
(Doc. 35). The undersigned originally filed findings and
recommendations granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on
June 14, 2012. After those findings and recommendations were issued,
but prior to the expiration of the objection period, the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012),
requiring notice be given to a prisoner plaintiff as to what is
required to defeat a motion for summary judgment at
the time such a motion is filed. The required notice was not
originally provided to plaintiff contemporaneously with the filing of
the pending motion. Defendant therefore provided the necessary
supplemental notice to plaintiff on July 6, 2012. The court then
allowed time for the parities to submit supplemental briefs in support
of their position on the motion for summary judgment. Those
supplemental briefs have now been received and considered (Docs. 43,
44, 45). The supplemental briefs do not materially alter the analysis
of the motion for summary judgment. These amended findings and
recommendations are therefore reissued without significant alteration
and minimal additional analysis.
A. Plaintiff's Allegations
The court has summarized plaintiff's claims as follows: Plaintiff's complaint raises issues with disparage treatment he claims he received from various prison staff for complaining about the use of racial epithets. He claims defendant Mauck used the word "nigger" either to or around him. When he complained of the use of that language, defendant Mauck discriminated against him by changing his job in the canteen. He then filed a grievance and defendant Thompson changed his job assignment again. He alleges these two defendants violated his Equal Protection rights as he was treated differently because of his race.
Defendant Thompson submits that there are no relevant facts in dispute. Specifically, defendant contends that plaintiff admitted during his deposition that defendant Thompson did not racially discriminate against him. As relevant to defendant Thompson, the undersigned finds the following facts are undisputed.
1. At the times relevant to this case, plaintiff was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (HDSP);
2. Plaintiff is an African-American male inmate;
3. Plaintiff began working in the canteen at HDSP on June 6, 2009;
4. On August 6, 2009, plaintiff was reassigned to a kitchen job in Facility D;
5. During the time plaintiff was assigned to the kitchen job, August 6, 2009 through August 25, 2009, he was called to work on August 11, 13, 14, and 15, 2009.
6. Plaintiff was reassigned to a job as an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) assistant, on August 25, 2009;
7. In August 2009, defendant Thompson was a Facility D dining hall officer, whose duties included providing security for the dining hall ...