Trujillo v. Biter

Filing 99

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81 , 82 & 94 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/2018: 21-Day Deadline; and This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,

Case No. 1:14-cv-01370-LJO-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

11
12

v.

13

GOMEZ, et al.,

(ECF. NOS. 81, 82, & 94)

14

Defendants.

15

Guillermo Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16
17

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on Plaintiff’s claims against Gomez,

19

Juarez, and Fernandez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos.

20

17, 19, & 98). The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

This action is

22

On August 11, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds

23

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF Nos. 81 & 82). On February

24

14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations,

25

recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 94).

26

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

27

recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed, and no objections have been

28

filed.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

3

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

6

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on February 14,

7

2018, are ADOPTED in full;

8

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

9

3. To the extent that Plaintiff moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 87, pgs. 1-3),
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice;

10
11

4. Defendants have twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to request an

12

evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff properly submitted grievances

13

that prison officials improperly failed to process; and

14

5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

March 19, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2