Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 69

ORDER ADOPTING 55 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 43 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER REFERRING Back to Magistrate Judge for Evidentiary Hearing signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/16/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LANCE WILLIAMS,

12

No. 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SALVATORE,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND
REFERRING BACK TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 43, 55)

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis1 in this civil rights action brought

17
18

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

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 21, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

20
21

recommendations recommending defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that

22

plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit be denied, and that

23

the matter be referred back to him for an evidentiary hearing in order to resolve relevant disputed

24

factual issues surrounding the issue of exhaustion. (Doc. No. 55.) These findings and

25

recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

26

filed within fourteen days, and any replies to such objections were to be filed within fourteen days

27
28

1

Plaintiff was previously proceeding pro se as well, but is currently represented by counsel.
(Doc. No. 64.)
1

1

thereafter. Plaintiff initially sought an extension of time to file objections to the findings and

2

recommendations, which was granted. (Doc. Nos. 57, 58.) On February 2, 2017, however,

3

plaintiff notified the court he would not be filing objections to the findings and recommendations.

4

(Doc. No. 61.) Defendants filed no objections and the time in which to do so has passed.

5

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

6

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

7

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by

8

proper analysis. Defendants are entitled to have disputed factual questions relating to exhaustion

9

resolved through a preliminary proceeding. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169–71 (9th Cir.

10

2014). Therefore, the case will be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for an

11

evidentiary hearing and further proceedings as deemed necessary and appropriate.

12

For these reasons:

13

1. The undersigned adopts the findings and recommendations filed on December 21, 2016

14
15
16
17

(Doc. No. 55) in full;
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 43), filed July 11, 2016, is
denied; and
3. The undersigned refers the matter back to the magistrate judge for an evidentiary

18

hearing on the issue of exhaustion and further proceedings as deemed necessary and appropriate.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

March 16, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2