Mario Molina v. Holland et al
Filing
74
ORDER ADOPTING 73 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims; ORDER REFERRING CASE to U.S. Magistrate Judge Grosjean, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/9/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARIO MOLINA,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
K. HOLLAND, et al.,
No. 1:15-cv-01260-DAD-EPG
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS
(Doc. No. 73)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Mario Molina is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 2, 2015, plaintiff
20
consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. No. 8.) Defendants
21
declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 49.)
22
The assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint before any defendants
23
appeared. (Doc. Nos. 28, 32). On February 1, 2017, plaintiff filed notice with the court that he
24
was willing to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the magistrate judge in the
25
screening order. (Doc. No. 29.) Therefore, in an order issued February 7, 2017, the magistrate
26
judge found that plaintiff had stated a cognizable claims against defendant Rivera for excessive
27
use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against defendants Rivera and Stanley for
28
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and
1
1
against defendants Rivera, Stanley, Holland, Gutierrez, and Jones for retaliation in violation of
2
the First Amendment, and dismissed all other claims and defendants. (Doc. No. 32.)
3
However, on November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all named plaintiffs and defendants, even those not served
5
with process, before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to dispose of a civil case.
6
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not
7
have jurisdiction to dismiss the above-described claim by way of the February 7, 2017 order. In
8
light of the Williams decision, on December 7, 2017, the magistrate judge entered findings and
9
recommendations, recommending that all claims and defendants, except for plaintiff’s claims
10
against defendant Rivera for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against
11
defendants Rivera and Stanley for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of
12
the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Rivera, Stanley, Holland, Gutierrez, and Jones for
13
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, be dismissed. (Doc. No. 73 at 13.) Those
14
findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any
15
objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.
16
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
17
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
18
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
19
Accordingly,
20
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on December 7, 2017,
21
are adopted in full;
2. All claims and defendants, except for plaintiff’s claims against defendant Rivera for
22
23
excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against defendants Rivera
24
and Stanley for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
Amendment, and against defendants Rivera, Stanley, Holland, Gutierrez, and Jones for
2
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, are dismissed; and
3
3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 9, 2018
UNITED STATES 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?