Valencia v. Gibson et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING 65 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendants' 46 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/10/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

1:12-cv-1446 AWI SAB (PC)

ABEL VALENCIA,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
13

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Doc. #’s 46 & 65

15
16
17

On April 18, 2014, the court issued an order adopting findings and recommendations

18
19
20

allowing plaintiff Abel Valencia (“Plaintiff”) to proceed only as to claims against defendant D.J.
Ruiz (“Ruiz”) for retaliation and against defendants D.J. Ruiz, A. Mayo, J.C. Garcia, J.C. Smith,

21

S. Johnson and an unknown Institutional Gang Investigator (“IGI”) (collectively “Defendants”)

22

for violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

23

Doc. # 22. On December 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all

24

remaining claims against all remaining Defendants on the ground Plaintiff’s complaint fails to

25
adequately allege exhaustion of administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation
26
27
28

Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Doc. # 46. Currently before the court are
findings of fact and recommendations of law (“F&R’s”) recommending that Defendants’ motion

A

1
2

for summary judgment be granted as to the retaliation claim against Ruiz, and as to the Due
Process claims against Mayo, Garcia, Smith and Johnson. Doc. # 65. The Magistrate Judge’s

3
4
5

F&R’s do not recommend granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Due Process claim
against Ruiz. The Findings and Recommendation were served on Plaintiff with notice that any

6

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. In

7

response, Petitioner filed objections to the F&R’s on July 6, 2015.

8
9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de
novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's filings,

10
the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by
11
12

the record and proper analysis.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 8, 2015, are hereby ADOPTED in full.

15

2. The Clerk of the Court shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants as to

16

Plaintiff’s claim against Ruiz for retaliation and in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs

17

claims against Mayo, Garcia, Smith and Johnson for Due Process violation.

18

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Docket Number 71 is hereby

19

REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of

20

law.

21

4. Plaintiff’s claim against Ruiz for Due Process violation is REFERRED to the Magistrate

22

Judge for further proceedings as appropriate.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: September 10, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

-2A