Pasillas v. Soto et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 01/10/2018. J.W. Moss (Chief ) and W. Wilson (Warden) terminated. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ERNESTO PASILLAS, 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 18) v. ORDER REASSIGNING ACTION 11 C/O SOTO, et al., 12 13 Former Case No.: 1:16-cv-00487-AWI-SAB Defendants. New Case No.: 1:16-cv-00487-SAB 14 15 16 Plaintiff Ernesto Pasillas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 5.) Shortly thereafter, on 20 June 16, 2016, the then-assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that 21 it stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Soto for the failure to intervene while Plaintiff 22 was assaulted by another inmate, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 6.) The 23 magistrate judge further found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Defendants 24 Wilson and Moss. (Id.) Plaintiff was directed to notify the Court in writing that he was willing 25 to proceed only against Defendant Soto, or to amend his complaint to attempt to cure the 26 deficiencies identified in the Court’s order. (Id.) 27 On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document stating that he did not wish to amend his 28 complaint, but asserting that he had pleaded sufficient allegations against Defendant Soto and 1 1 Defendant Wilson. (Doc. No. 7.) The case was then re-assigned to the currently-assigned 2 magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 8.) 3 On September 19, 2016, the magistrate judge dismissed Defendants Wilson and Moss for 4 the failure to state a cognizable claim against them based on the reasoning of the prior screening 5 order, and ordered that the action would proceed only against Defendant Soto on Plaintiff’s 6 failure to protect claim. (Doc. No. 9.) The case then proceeded on Plaintiff’s claim against 7 Defendant Soto. 8 On April 13, 2017, Defendant Soto appeared and consented to the jurisdiction of a United 9 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 15.) On 10 May 8, 2017, Defendant Soto answered the complaint. (Doc. No. 16.) On May 9, 2017, the 11 Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. No. 17.) 12 On November 30, 2017, the magistrate judge reinstated Plaintiff’s previously dismissed 13 claims, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 14 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with 15 prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge 16 jurisdiction, as Plaintiff had done here. (Doc. No. 18.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued 17 findings and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss those reinstated 18 claims. (Id.) The parties were given fourteen days to file his objections to those findings and 19 recommendations. No objections were filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 21 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. The undersigned concludes the 22 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. December 1, 2017 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full; 25 26 27 The findings and recommendations issued on November 30, 2017 and filed on 2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Wilson and Moss are dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 28 /// 2 1 3. This action shall proceed solely on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Soto for 2 the failure to intervene while Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate, in 3 violation of the Eighth Amendment; 4 4. All parties having consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 5 Judge for all further proceedings in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 6 (Doc. Nos. 5, 15), the undersigned shall take no further action in this case; and 7 5. This Court reassigns the action to United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. 8 Boone for all further proceedings. All further papers filed in this action shall bear 9 the new case number: 1:16-cv-00487-SAB. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 10, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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?