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)

Download PDF
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

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?