Langley v. Tulare Police Department et al

Filing 70

ORDER Adopting 64 Findings and Recommendations, Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed on Excessive Force and Unreasonable Search and Seizure Claims Against Defendant Jose Colegio, Dismissing All Other Defendants and Claims, and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/3/18. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY LANGLEY,

12
13

No. 1:16-cv-00336-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff,

17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, ALLOWING
PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ON EXCESSIVE
FORCE AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT JOSE COLEGIO, DISMISSING
ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS,
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

18

(Doc. No. 64)

14
15
16

19

v.
TULARE POLICE DEPARTMENT and
JOSE COLEGIO,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Randy Langley (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2018,

21

the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. No. 62) and

22

issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this case proceed only on plaintiff’s

23

excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure claims brought against defendant Jose

24

Colegio. (Doc. No. 64.) The findings and recommendations also recommended that plaintiff’s

25

motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 60) be denied without prejudice as to plaintiff’s

26

excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure claims against defendant Colegio, and otherwise

27

denied as moot. (Doc. No. 64.) The findings and recommendations were served on January 10,

28

2018 and provided plaintiff with twenty-one days in which to file objections. (Id.) Plaintiff filed
1

1

objections on February 2, 2018. (Doc. No. 66.)

2

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

3

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

4

objections1, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

5

and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections primarily pertain to the magistrate judge’s

6

recommendation to dismiss his Monell claims brought under § 1983 against defendant “Tulare

7

Police Department” and do not provide any persuasive argument calling into question the

8

magistrate judge’s conclusions, set forth in the findings and recommendations, that plaintiff has

9

failed to allege a cognizable Monell claim against the City of Tulare. (Doc. No. 66.)

10

Accordingly,

11

1. The January 10, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 64) are adopted in

12

full;
2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Jose Colegio for

13
14

excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth

15

Amendment;

16

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed;

17

4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 60) is denied without prejudice as

18

to plaintiff’s excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure claims against

19

defendant Colegio and denied as moot as to all other claims and defendants; and

20

5. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

21
22

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

April 3, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

The court has also considered plaintiff’s renewed request for the appointment of counsel, raised
in his objections. (Doc. No. 66 at 4.) The court is unpersuaded that exceptional circumstances
currently exist that would justify appointing counsel willing to represent plaintiff in this action on
a pro bono basis and therefore denies plaintiff’s renewed request without prejudice. (See Doc.
No. 45.)
2