Sahibi v. Gonzales. et al.
Filing
135
ORDER ADOPTING 132 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/4/2018. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
OUSSAMA SAHIBI,
12
13
14
15
CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
BORJAS GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS
(ECF No. 132)
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
19
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
20
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On February 10, 2015, the then-assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s
22
complaint and concluded that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force
23
claim against Defendants Brandon Cope, Borjas Gonzales, Mario Lozano, Howard
24
Smith, and Stan, and a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant
25
Crounse. Plaintiff’s state law claims were found non-cognizable. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff
26
was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint or proceed only on the
27
28
1
cognizable claim. (Id.) Plaintiff chose to proceed (ECF No. 8), and the Magistrate Judge
2
dismissed the state law claims for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 9).
3
The matter since has proceed through discovery, a motion for judgment on the
4
pleadings, a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust as to Defendant
5
Crounse, a motion for summary judgment on the merits as to Defendant Crounse, and
6
an unsuccessful settlement conference. It presently is set for a trial on June 26, 2018.
7
(ECF No. 73.)
8
On December 4, 2017, the Magistrate Judge re-screened Plaintiff’s complaint,
9
recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.
10
2017), held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with
11
prejudice in screening prisoner complaints absent the consent of all parties, even if the
12
plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff had here. (ECF No.
13
132.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
14
recommending that the undersigned dismiss the non-cognizable claims. (Id.) The parties
15
were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. No
16
objections were filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
17
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
18
the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s case. Having carefully reviewed
19
the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the
20
record and by proper analysis.
21
22
23
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued December 4, 2017 are adopted
in full;
24
2. The action shall continue to proceed only on an Eighth Amendment
25
excessive force claim against Defendants Brandon Cope, Borjas Gonzales,
26
Mario Lozano, Howard Smith, and Stan; and a Fourteenth Amendment due
27
process claim against Defendant Crounse;
28
2
3. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
1
2
claim.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
January 4, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF 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?