Daniels v. Valencia et al
Filing
33
ORDER Adopting 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/25/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID DANIELS,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:17-cv-00492-DAD-EPG
Plaintiff,
v.
J. VALENCIA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 23, 30)
16
17
18
Plaintiff David Daniels is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
19
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
20
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On January 26, 2018, defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia, Pano, Benavidez, Crabtree,
22
Johnson, and Madruga filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force
23
claim, contending that the claim is barred under the decisions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
24
477, 480 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997). (Doc. No. 19.) On July 27,
25
2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that
26
the motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 30.) The findings and recommendations were served
27
on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days
28
after service. (Id. at 11.) On August 30, 2018, defendants filed objections. (Doc. No. 31.)
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has
2
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including
3
defendants’ objections, the undersigned finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
4
by the record and proper analysis.
5
In their objections, defendants contend that “it is clear from the face of judicially
6
noticeable records that plaintiff was convicted of assaulting defendants.” (Doc. No. 31 at 2.)
7
This argument fails as a factual matter. The criminal information filed against plaintiff alleges
8
that he committed felony battery against Nicholas Vazquez, David Smith, and Jaime Vazquez.
9
(Doc. No. 23 at 11–12.) None of those victims is a defendant in this civil rights action.
10
Logically, plaintiff’s battery against those victims would appear to have little to do with whether
11
or not defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia, Pano, Benevidez, Crabtree, Johnson, and Madruga
12
used excessive force against plaintiff. Although defendants argue that “the identification of
13
Plaintiff’s particular victims in the Abstract of Judgment is immaterial to the Heck analysis,” they
14
cite no legal authority for this proposition. (Doc. No. 31 at 2.) To the contrary, it is not clear at
15
this stage that these incidents were connected in any way. Accordingly, the court concurs with
16
the findings and recommendations.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 30, 2018 (Doc. No. 30) are adopted in
full;
2. The request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 20) filed by defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia,
Pano, Benavidez, Crabtree, Johnson, and Madruga is granted in part, as follows:
a. The court takes judicial notice of the Abstract of Judgment, and of those portions
23
of the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) that show the charge on which plaintiff
24
was found guilty, the victim of the charge, and the punishment imposed as a result
25
of the finding of guilt;
26
b. The court otherwise denies the request for judicial notice, including the request
27
that the court take notice of the underlying factual allegations in the RVR;
28
3. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 23) is granted;
2
1
4. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia, Pano, Benavidez,
2
Crabtree, Johnson, and Madruga on January 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 19) is denied without
3
prejudice to defendants asserting preclusion pursuant to Heck at a later stage in the
4
proceedings;
5
6
7
8
9
10
5. Defendants are directed to file their answer to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order; and
6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 25, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?