Hearns v. Gonzales

Filing 67

ORDER Adopting 49 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 38 ; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 61 Motion to Vacate Evidentiary Hearing; Case to Remain Open, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMAR HEARNS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 1:14-cv-01177-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

R.GONZALES, et al.,
(Doc. No. 49)

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO VACATE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

17

(Doc. No. 61)

18

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to

20
21

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

22

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United State District Court for the Eastern

23

District of California.
On November 8, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

24
25

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied and

26

that an evidentiary hearing be conducted before the magistrate judge in order to resolve the

27

factual disputes concerning the question of whether plaintiff exhausted his administrative

28

/////
1

1

remedies prior to filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 49.) Defendants filed no objections to the

2

findings and recommendations and the time for doing so has passed.

3

Plaintiff, rather than file objections to the findings and recommendations, filed a motion to

4

vacate the Magistrate Judge’s “order” for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 61.) Therein,

5

plaintiff describes an administrative appeals process that he believes renders it virtually

6

impossible for an inmate to prove that his administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.

7

He argues that rather than set an evidentiary hearing, the court should grant plaintiff leave to file a

8

fourth amended complaint, which plaintiff believes will “cure all defects.” Defendants have filed

9

no response to plaintiff’s motion. Moreover, the court has recently adopted the magistrate

10

judge’s findings and recommendations and denied plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a

11

supplemental complaint. (Doc. No. 50, 66.)

12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

13

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

14

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Defendants are

15

entitled to have disputed factual questions relating to exhaustion resolved through a preliminary

16

proceeding. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169–71 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff’s motion,

17

construed as objections to the pending findings and recommendations, merely raises issues of fact

18

that are appropriately addressed at that evidentiary hearing.

19

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED;

21

2. The court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed November 8, 2016

22

(Doc. No. 49), in full;
3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 38), filed April 13, 2016 is

23
24

DENIED

25

4. The court REFERS the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

26

on the exhaustion issue; and

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

5. The case shall remain open for resolution of the exhaustion issue and, if necessary,
further proceedings on plaintiff’s claims.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 9, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3