Corena v. Holland et al

Filing 94

ORDER Adopting 89 Findings and Recommendations re 51 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/15/19. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JORGE CORENA,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF NOS. 51 & 89)
RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Jorge Corena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

18

United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This

19

action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims “against defendants Rodriguez, Cerveza, and Doe for

20

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against the Doe defendant for failure to

21

protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Rodriguez and Doe for

22

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.” (ECF No. 26, p. 2).

23

On October 26, 2018, Defendant Rodriguez filed a motion for summary judgment based

24

on the alleged failure of Plaintiff to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing

25

suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (ECF

26

No. 51). Plaintiff filed a declaration opposing the motion for summary judgment on November

27

19, 2018, (ECF No. 59), along with a request for judicial notice with various exhibits attached

28

(ECF. No. 58). Defendant Rodriguez filed a reply on November 26, 2018. (ECF No. 61).
1

1

Plaintiff, without first seeking Court approval, filed a response to the reply on December 6,

2

2018. (ECF No. 63). Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean held a hearing on the motion on

3

December 19, 2018.

4

determine certain disputes of fact (ECF Nos. 69 & 72). On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed

5

another request for judicial notice. (ECF No. 82). Judge Grosjean held the evidentiary hearing

6

on March 27, 2019. (ECF No. 87).

7
8

(ECF No. 67).

On April 18, 2019, Judge Grosjean entered findings and recommendations,
recommending that:

9

1.

10

2.

11
12
13

3.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Judge Grosjean then set an evidentiary hearing to

Defendant Rodriguez’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 51) be granted in part.
The claim against Defendant Rodriguez based on
the alleged July 15, 2014 excessive force incident
and the claim for retaliation against Defendant
Rodriguez based on that same incident be
dismissed.
That Plaintiff be deemed to have exhausted his
available administrative remedies as to the
excessive force claim against Defendant
Rodriguez based on the alleged July 9, 2014
excessive force incident

(ECF No. 89, p. 21).
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and neither party has objected
to the findings and recommendations. However, Plaintiff did file what appears to be an
unauthorized supplement brief following the evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 93).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
analysis.
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on April 18,
2019, are ADOPTED in full.
2

1

2. Defendant Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) is granted in

2

part.

3

3. The claim against Defendant Rodriguez based on the alleged July 15, 2014

4

excessive force incident and the claim for retaliation against Defendant Rodriguez

5

based on that same incident is dismissed.

6

4. Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted his available administrative remedies as to the

7

excessive force claim against Defendant Rodriguez based on the alleged July 9,

8

2014 excessive force incident.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 15, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3