Harris v. Pimentel, et al.
Filing
86
***DISREGARD*** ORDER ADOPTING 64 Findings and Recommendations to GRANT Defendant's 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/15/16. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DARRELL HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
Case No. 1:13-cv-01354-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
S. ESCAMILLA, et al.,
(ECF NOS. 44, 64)
Defendants.
14
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought
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
January
25,
2016,
the
magistrate
judge
issued
findings
and
recommendations to grant Defendant Escamilla’s motion for partial summary judgment
on Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim as unexhausted. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff has filed his
objections, and Defendant has filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 80, 85.)
Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the
undersigned finds no reason to depart from the magistrate judge’s conclusion. Plaintiff’s
Equal Protection claim is premised on Defendant Escamilla’s remark that Plaintiff is a
“rag-head Black Muslim and a terrorist” during a January 2013 cell search. In opposition
to Defendant Escamilla’s motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff was required to
present evidence or argument supporting his contention that he did exhaust his
1 administrative remedies as to this claim or that those remedies were effectively
2 unavailable to him. The magistrate judge found that, though the evidence established
3 that Plaintiff was aware of the remark on the day it was allegedly made, Plaintiff’s
4 grievance did not reference it, thus failing to put the prison on notice of Plaintiff’s claim.
5 The magistrate judge also found that Plaintiff’s argument that administrative remedies
6 were unavailable to him was unconvincing. In the objections now before the Court,
7 Plaintiff has not submitted any new or relevant argument sufficient to justify departure
8 from the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
10 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed
11 the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the
12 record and by proper analysis.
13
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
15
1. The January 25, 2016, findings and recommendations (ECF No. 64) are
ADOPTED in full;
16
17
2. Defendant’s July 1, 2015, motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 44)
is GRANTED;
18
19
3. Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim is dismissed for failure to exhaust
20
administrative remedies; and
21
4. This action is to remain open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
April 15, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?