Ivan Lee Matthews v. Liles et al

Filing 63

ORDER adopting 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/2/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN LEE MATTHEWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. LILES, et al,

15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00083-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF No. 59)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Omar Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and

19

Cable have appeared in this action, and Defendant Grant has not.
On January 25, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s fourth amended

20
21

complaint and found that he stated cognizable claims for retaliation and denial of access to courts

22

in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable arising from

23

the denial of Plaintiff’s legal papers. (ECF No. 22.) The magistrate judge dismissed all other

24

claims and defendants, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (Id.) On September 25, 2017,

25

the undersigned granted in part and denied in part Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable’s motion

26

to dismiss. (ECF No. 51.) This action now proceeds against Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and

27

///

28

///
1

1

Cable only on the claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising from the denial

2

of Plaintiff’s legal papers.1 (Id.)

3

On December 20, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened Plaintiff’s fourth

4

amended complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d

5

500 (9th Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims

6

with prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate

7

judge jurisdiction, as Plaintiff did here. (ECF No. 59.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued

8

findings and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss the non-cognizable

9

claims. (Id.) The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and

10

recommendations. Following an extension of time, Plaintiff timely filed objections on February

11

12, 2018. (ECF No. 62.) No other objections were filed, and the time in which to do so has

12

expired.

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 the case. The undersigned concludes the findings

15

and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

16

As indicated, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff apparently objects to

17

the magistrate judge’s finding that he has failed to state a cognizable claim for denial of access to

18

the courts against Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable. Plaintiff is mistaken. At the pleading

19

stage, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff did state a cognizable claim in his fourth amended

20

complaint for denial of access to courts against Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable.

21

With respect to Plaintiff’s “objection” seeking further clarification as to whether he must

22

file a new in forma pauperis application regarding his denial of access to the courts claim against

23

Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable, Plaintiff is reminded that these claims were dismissed, with

24

prejudice, on September 25, 2017 pursuant to the Court’s order granting in part and denying in

25

part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 51.) Thus, Plaintiff may not revive these claims in

26
1

27
28

On October 10, 2017, Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 53.)
At this time, the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the arguments, defenses, or affirmative defenses raised
in the pending motion for summary judgment. Separate findings and recommendations from the assigned magistrate
judge will be issued on that motion in due course.

2

1
2

this action, or re-file them in a new action.
None of Plaintiff’s remaining objections provide a legal basis on which to question the

3

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Further, considering the Court’s prior ruling

4

on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and the pending motion for summary judgment, further leave to

5

amend would be unwarranted, would unduly delay the proceedings and waste judicial resources,

6

and would likely be futile.

7
8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 20, 2017, (ECF No. 59) are
adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s claims arising out of the alleged deprivation of his property or the

11

administrative appeals process are dismissed from this action for the failure to state a

12

claim upon which relief may be granted;

13
14

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Grant are dismissed without prejudice as improperly
joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20; and

15

4. This action proceeds solely against Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable only on the

16

claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising from the denial of

17

Plaintiff’s legal papers, as alleged in the fourth amended complaint, those claims having

18

been found to be cognizable in the magistrate judge’s prior screening orders, (ECF Nos.

19

22, 59), and the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to

20

dismiss, (ECF No. 51).

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3