Sim v. Duran et al
Filing
27
ORDER Adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/7/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HWA SUNG SIM,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 1:16-cv-01051-DAD-SAB
v.
MONICA DURAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 22)
16
Plaintiff Hwa Sung Sim is appearing in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant
17
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction on August 15, 2016.
19
(Doc. No. 5.) To date, defendants have not consented or declined to United States magistrate
20
judge jurisdiction.
On March 20, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended
21
22
complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against defendant Duran for excessive use
23
of force and against Dr. Johal for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical need in
24
violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 10.) However, the magistrate judge found that
25
plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff
26
was directed to either file a second amended complaint or notify the magistrate judge of his intent
27
to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.)
28
/////
1
1
On April 6, 2017, plaintiff notified the magistrate judge of his intent to proceed only on
2
the claims found to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 11.) Therefore, on April 7, 2017, the magistrate
3
judge found that service was appropriate as to plaintiff’s claims against defendant Duran for
4
excessive use of force and against Dr. Johal for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious
5
medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 12.) The magistrate judge
6
dismissed all other claims and defendants for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Id.)
7
The magistrate judge indicated that jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to do so by
8
order based on the fact that plaintiff had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction and no other
9
parties had yet appeared. (Id.)
10
However, on November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 28 U.S.C.
11
§ 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all named plaintiffs and defendants, even those not served
12
with process, before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to dispose of a civil case.
13
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not
14
have jurisdiction to dismiss the above-described claims by way of the April 7, 2017 order.
15
Therefore, on December 1, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
16
recommending this action proceed on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Duran for excessive use
17
of force and against Dr. Johal for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of
18
the Eighth Amendment and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 22.)
19
The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that
20
objections were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed and the time period in
21
which to do so has expired.
22
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the
23
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. The undersigned concludes the findings
24
and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
25
Accordingly,
26
1. The December 1, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 22) are adopted in full;
27
2. This action shall continue to proceed on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Duran for
28
excessive use of force and against Dr. Johal for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s
2
1
2
3
4
5
serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a
cognizable claim for relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 7, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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?