Thomas

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HILBERT THOMAS, Case No. 22-cv-01778-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING

9 v. MOTION FOR “DECREE”

10 R. PASHILK, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 63, 78 Defendants. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without attorney representation, filed this civil 14 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is the operative 15 complaint. The remaining Defendants are three officials at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”): R. 16 Pashilk, R. Feston, and D. Campbell.1 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF 17 No. 63), Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 69), and Defendants replied (ECF No. 73). For the reasons 18 discussed below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for a 19 “decree” (ECF No. 78) is DENIED. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On April 1, 2021, Defendant Pashilk, an officer in SQSP’s…