Corey Lavelle Green v. M. Lizarraga, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) and Defendants' objections regarding a motion for summary judgment in a civil rights action. The court adopted the R&R, granting summary judgment on the illegal extraction claim but denying it on the excessive force claims against specific defendants.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The Court having reviewed the thorough and well-reasoned R&R, adopts it in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court explicitly states it reviewed the R&R and adopted it. While the order does not explicitly state the 'de novo' standard for reviewing objections, this is the mandatory standard under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court's decision to adopt the R&R after addressing specific objections is procedurally correct. |
Granting of Summary Judgment on Illegal Extraction Claim“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs illegal extraction claim is GRANTED.” | de novo | unsure The court adopts the R&R which recommended this outcome. The order does not provide the specific factual or legal basis for granting this specific claim, relying instead on the 'thorough and well-reasoned' nature of the R&R. Without the R&R text, the specific merits cannot be fully evaluated, but the procedural mechanism of adoption is correct. |
Denial of Summary Judgment on Excessive Force Claims against Lizarraga, Galindo, and Montejano“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Defendants Lizarraga, Galindo, and Montejano is DENIED.” | de novo | agree with court The court addresses two specific objections: (1) Heck v. Humphrey preclusion, and (2) the role of Sgt. Montejano. Regarding Heck, the court cites King v. R. Villegas (9th Cir. 2025) to support the view that the civil action is not a collateral attack on the criminal conviction. Regarding Montejano, the court finds a genuine dispute of material fact based on the plaintiff's pro se allegations that Montejano ordered the force, applying the liberal construction standard from Erickson v. Pardus. This reasoning correctly applies the summary judgment standard (existence of genuine dispute) and the pro se pleading standard. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is concise but addresses the specific objections raised by the defendants. It correctly identifies the legal standard for reviewing pro se pleadings (Erickson) and applies a recent Ninth Circuit authority (King) to distinguish the current case from Heck preclusion. The finding of a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Sgt. Montejano's involvement is supported by the quoted allegations. The reliance on the R&R for the granted portion (illegal extraction) is procedurally sound, though the specific reasoning for that grant is not restated in the order itself.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Case No.: 22-cv-01175-DMS-MMP COREY LAVELLE GREEN, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING 11 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT 12 AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) M. LIZARRAGA, et al., GRANTING IN PART AND 13 Defendants. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 14 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 16 17 18 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit’s Report and 19 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part 20 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 88). Defendants have filed 21 objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 92). The Court having reviewed the thorough and well- 22 reasoned R&R, adopts it in its entirety. 23 Defendants contend that the R&R failed to appropriately apply Heck v. Humphrey 24 to the facts at hand. 512 U.S. 477 (1994). However, the Court is persuaded by the analysis 25 in the R&R leading to the conclusion that “the criminal jury did not necessarily make a 26 finding that any of the defendants currently before this Court acted lawfully.” (ECF No. 27 88); see King v. R. Villegas, No. 23-1713, 2025 WL 2950508, at *7 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025) 28 (noting that a prisoner plaintiff’s excessive force action filed prior to criminal charges was 1 ||not the type of collateral attack contemplated by the Supreme Court in deciding Heck). 2 ||Defendants also object to the survival of claims against Sergeant Montejano, who they 3 |}argue did not order the excessive force at issue. Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Montejano 4 “ordered [the other officers] to run inside the cell to do that, because he said he did that” 5 that “under [Sgt. Montejano’s] orders it was ill intentions that cause [sic] my injuries 6 || by his command to cause me harm.” (ECF Nos. 71-2 at 37, 1 at 2-3) (emphasis added). 7 || Although the Defendants point out what they think “Plaintiff is most likely referring to,” 8 ||any ambiguity tends to show a genuine dispute as to a material fact, particularly given the 9 || duty to liberally construe documents filed pro se. (ECF No. 92); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 10 89, 94 (2007). 11 For these reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion for 12 ||}Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs illegal extraction claim is GRANTED. Defendants’ 13 || Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Defendants 14 || Lizarraga, Galindo, and Montejano is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: October 21, 2025 2» 17 jn Yn « 18 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28