Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting Defendants Leave to Provide Further Briefing on Exhaustion of State Law Claims, Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/19/17. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
LEAVE TO PROVIDE FURTHER
BRIEFING ON EXHAUSTION OF STATE
LAW CLAIMS, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

vs.
McCABE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

21

November 5, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) The case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint

22

filed on July 10, 2014, on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims for retaliation, Eighth

23

Amendment claims for inadequate medical care and inhumane conditions of confinement, and

24

state law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and medical

25

malpractice. (ECF No. 10.)

26

On November 9, 2016, the court issued an order granting in part the motion for partial

27

summary judgment filed by defendants McCabe, Clark, Gill, Sao, Rouch, Herrera, Dougherty,

28

C/O J. Faldon, Kaiser-Smotherman, Molina, Torres, Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Hayward, and
1

1

Strome1 (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 82.) The order dismissed the following claims

2

without prejudice as having not been exhausted prior to filing suit:

3

Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera,

4

Kaiser, McCabe, Molina, Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, Torres, and Strome; (b) Plaintiff’s

5

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendants Faldon, Hayward,

6

McCabe, Molina, Quillen, Riley, Torres, and Rocha; and (c) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

7

medical claim against defendants Faldon, Dougherty, Herrera, and Kaiser. (ECF No. 82 at 3-

8

4.)
With respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims, the court found:

9

[D]efendants’ motion for summary judgment did include a discussion of
California law related to the administrative exhaustion requirement. (Doc. 72-1
at 13.) However, defendants’ motion failed to provide any analysis of the
exhaustion requirement under state law. (Id. at 14-20.) While the defendants
may have intended to contest plaintiff’s administrative exhaustion of his state
law claims through their motion for summary judgment, they did not clearly do
so.

10
11
12
13
14

(a) Plaintiff’s First

(Id. at 3:5-10.)

15

The case was referred back to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,

16

including consideration of whether Plaintiff properly exhausted his state law claims prior to

17

filing suit. (Id. at 3:12-13.) At this juncture, Defendants shall be granted leave to file further

18

briefing on this issue, if they so wish, within thirty days.

19

II.

20

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1.

Defendants are granted leave to file further briefing on the issue of whether

22

Plaintiff properly exhausted his state law claims prior to filing suit, if they so

23

wish, within thirty days of the date of service of this order;

24

2.

25
26

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ briefing, if any, is due within thirty days of
the date the briefing is filed; and

///

27
28

1

Defendant Strome joined the motion for summary judgment on May 6, 2016. (ECF No. 76.)
2

1

3.

2

Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s response, if any, is due within ten days of the
date the response is filed.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 19, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3