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)

Download PDF
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?