United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF
No. 31 FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 6 & 7.) This action proceeds against Defendants Hernandez and Childs on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (ECF Nos. 18 & 19.)
Before the Court is Defendants' May 19, 2014 motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff opposes the motion (ECF No. 34), and Defendants have filed a reply (ECF No. 35). This matter is deemed submitted.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Wash. Mut. Inc. v. United States , 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court may not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. , 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007), and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach , 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011).
III. FACTUAL SUMMARY
Based on the submissions of the parties (ECF Nos. 31, 32, & 34), the Court finds that the following facts are undisputed.
Plaintiff complains of acts that occurred during his incarceration at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF), where he was housed from July 2008 through September 2012. (ECF No. 17, No. 32 at 1.) Plaintiff claims that, while at SATF, Defendants Hernandez and Childs denied Plaintiff out-of-cell exercise for a period of 180 days in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 18 & 19.) The deprivation of exercise allegedly was imposed in relation to Plaintiff being found guilty on two Rules Violation Reports ("RVRs"). The first RVR was issued on December 28, 2009, for possession of inmate manufactured alcohol. The second RVR was issued on December 30, 2009, also for possession of inmate manufactured alcohol.
Plaintiff filed two appeals regarding the RVRs, log numbers SATF-10-00361 and SATF-10-00524. (ECF No. 34 at 3-6.) Both appeals alleged that the processing of the RVRs violated Plaintiff's due process rights, and that the privilege restrictions imposed were excessive. Plaintiff pursued both appeals to the Director's Level of Review. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed a separate appeal, log number SATF-E-10-1773, regarding the denial of adequate exercise. (ECF No. 32-7.) The appeal was denied at the first level of review. (ECF No. 32-8.) Plaintiff attempted to pursue his appeal to the second level of review, but the appeal was returned to Plaintiff as incomplete. Plaintiff was advised of the specific documents that were required and the process for obtaining copies. (ECF No. 32-9.) Thereafter, the appeal was "cancelled." (ECF No. 32-10 at 6.)
A. Motion for Summary Judgment for ...