Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 161

ORDER ADOPTING 146 Findings and Recommendations in Full signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 03/27/2024. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BAKER and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-NODJ-HBK (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(Doc. 146)

Defendants.
The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the

18

district court grant Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 146.) Plaintiff filed

19

objections on November 21, 2023. (Doc. 147.)

20

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this

21

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations

22

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s arguments do not meaningfully

23

call into question the reasoning provided in the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff contends

24

that this Court long ago found Defendants had waived the present Bivens argument. (Doc. No.

25

147 at 1-3). Plaintiff is correct that in a March 26, 2019 Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

26

Findings and Recommendation, the Court found that Defendants had waived the argument with

27

respect to their July 3, 2018 Motion for Summary Adjudication because Defendants only raised it

28

in objection to the Court’s Findings and Recommendations, and had not raised it before the

1

magistrate judge. (See Doc. No. 61 at 2). The Court did not make a finding, as Plaintiff implies,

2

that the issue was waived for all future purposes in this litigation. Notably, the Court declined to

3

rule on the underlying legal question regarding extension of Bivens and noted that the Ninth

4

Circuit had not yet ruled on the issue. (Id. n.1). As the magistrate judge correctly noted, because

5

the Ninth Circuit has now expressly ruled that a Bivens remedy may not be extended to Eighth

6

Amendment excessive use of force claims, the Court is bound to apply that precedent. (Doc. No.

7

146 at 5-6). Plaintiff fails to cite any legal authority that would warrant disregarding clearly

8

applicable and binding precedent.

9

Thus, the Court ORDERS the findings and recommendations filed on November 7, 2023

10

(Doc. 146), are ADOPTED IN FULL.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: March 27, 2024.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2