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
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?