UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 25, 2013
JOSEPH R. PULLIAM, PLAINTIFF,
M. LOZANO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 62)
Plaintiff Joseph R. Pulliam ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 November 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations, recommending that Defendants Lozano and Mason's motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 91.) Defendants have filed objections. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendants' objections. (ECF No. 93.)
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. Defendants argue Plaintiff's claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) because a finding in Plaintiff's favor would require a reversal of Plaintiff's Rules Violation Report in which Plaintiff was found guilty of battery on a peace officer. (ECF No. 92.) In this matter, Plaintiff's claims would be barred by Heck if a finding in his favor would affect his loss of good time credits. Defendants fail to explain why even though Plaintiff was found guilty of a battery, his actual loss of good time credits was for assault rather than battery. In this case, a finding in Plaintiff's favor would not affect his loss of good time credits for assault. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 30, 2012, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants Lozano and Mason's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.