McCrea v. Hubbard et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/08/2018. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE MCCREA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. J. HUBBARD, et al., 15 No. 1:17-cv-00247-DAD-MJS ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS (Doc. No. 29) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 19 a United States Magistrate Judge over the action for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 20 (Doc. No. 6.) Defendant Denman has not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 21 On June 27, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order directing 22 plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or a notice of willingness to proceed only on his 23 claim against defendant Denman which was found to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 8.) On July 17, 24 2017, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 9.) On August 23, 2017, the magistrate 25 judge screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it stated only a cognizable 26 claim against defendant Denman. (Doc. No. 10.) The magistrate judge found the claim against 27 defendant Hubbard to be non-cognizable and dismissed that claim by order. (Id.) 28 ///// 1 1 However, on November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all named plaintiffs and defendants, even those not served with 3 process, before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to dispose of a civil case. Williams v. 4 King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 5 dismiss the above-described claims by way of the August 23, 2017 order. Therefore, on 6 December 12, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending 7 that this action proceed only against defendant Denman and that defendant Hubbard be dismissed 8 for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The findings and recommendations were served 9 on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff 10 filed a response indicating his “consent” to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 11 (Doc. No. 31.) 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 13 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff’s case. In his initial complaint, plaintiff 14 alleges that defendant Hubbard intentionally jerked back plaintiff’s head and ordered him to look 15 up at the sun. In evaluating plaintiff’s complaint, the magistrate judge concluded that there were 16 insufficient facts alleged to establish an excessive force claim and directed plaintiff to include 17 more facts “supporting a claim…that Hubbard had no penological justification for ordering 18 plaintiff to put his head back and look at the sun and in physically acting to enforce that order and 19 that the force used was greater than reasonably necessary to enforce the order.” (Doc. No. 8 at 6.) 20 Plaintiff amended his complaint but did not add such facts. (Doc. No. 9.) As such, the 21 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 22 proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, 24 1. 25 The findings and recommendations filed on December 12, 2017 (Doc. No. 29) are adopted in full; 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 2. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Hubbard is dismissed; and 2 3. This action shall proceed on the plaintiff’s claim against defendant Denman. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 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?