Brown v. Gipson et al
Filing
63
ORDER ADOPTING 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Defendants: Gipson, Gonzales, Guzman, and the John Doe; ORDERED that this matter be referred back to assigned Magistrate Judge, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 01/10/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
WILLIAM BROWN,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
W. RASLEY,
Case No. 1:13-cv-02084-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 26)
Defendant.
17
18
19
Plaintiff William Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate
21
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 6.) Later, on May 22, 2017,
22
the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found that it
23
stated a cognizable claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, excessive force in
24
violation of the Eighth Amendment, and conversion against Defendant Rasely. (Doc. No. 33.)
25
The magistrate judge dismissed all other claims and defendants for the failure to state a claim
26
upon which relief may be granted. (Id.)
27
28
The case then proceeded on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Rasley. On August 30,
2017, Defendant Rasley answered the second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 41.) On September
1
1
1, 2017, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. No. 42.) On December 28,
2
2017, Defendant Rasley filed the motion for summary judgment, which remains pending. (Doc.
3
No. 61.) Defendant Rasley also declined to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge
4
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 49.)
5
On December 12, 2017, the magistrate judge reinstated Plaintiff’s previously dismissed
6
claims, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.
7
2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice
8
in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction,
9
as Plaintiff had done here. (Doc. No. 53.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and
10
recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss those reinstated claims. (Id.) The
11
parties were given fourteen days to file his objections to those findings and recommendations.
12
No objections were filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
13
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the
14
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. The undersigned concludes the
15
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
16
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
18
19
The findings and recommendations issued on December 12, 2017 (Doc. No. 53)
are adopted in full;
2.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Gipson, Gonzales, Guzman, and the John
20
Doe defendants are dismissed for the failure to state a claim against them upon
21
which relief may be granted;
22
3.
Plaintiff’s claims for slavery and involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth
23
Amendment, for due process and equal protection violations of the Fourteenth
24
Amendment, and for injunctive relief, are dismissed for the failure to state a claim
25
upon which relief may be granted;
26
4.
This action shall proceed solely on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Rasley for
27
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, excessive force in violation of the
28
Eighth Amendment, and conversion against Defendant Rasely; and
2
1
2
5.
This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?