Smith v. Knowlton

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING 64 Findings and Recommendations Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Law Library Access and Granting Defendant's 37 Motion for Summary Judgment Exhaustion signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 04/17/2024. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KNOWLTON.,

15
16

No. 1:18-cv-00851 JLT BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LAW LIBRARY
ACCESS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(EXHAUSTION)

Defendant.
(Docs. 37, 46, 64)

17

Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant

19

Knowlton for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

20

On February 7, 2024, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

21

to deny Plaintiff’s motion for law library access and grant Defendant’s motion for summary

22

judgment (exhaustion). (Doc. 64.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties

23

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 14 days. (Id. at 11–12.)

24

Following an extension of time, Plaintiff timely filed objections on April 2, 2024. (Doc. 69.)

25

Defendant filed a response to the objections. (Doc. 70.)

26

Plaintiff’s objections raise a variety of arguments. To the extent Plaintiff contends that the

27

findings and recommendations should not be adopted on the basis of events outside the scope of

28

this action, such as allegations raised in other lawsuits, the actions of defense counsel in this case
1

1

or any other suit, Plaintiff’s continuing belief that all of Plaintiff’s current and prior litigation

2

should be consolidated, or requests for sanctions against attorneys, those arguments have been

3

repeatedly dismissed by the Court. (See Docs. 8, 62, 63; see also Doc. 64 at 9, n.4.) Plaintiff’s

4

remaining arguments regarding the motion for summary judgment at issue, that his administrative

5

remedies were unavailable due to alleged due process violations at his disciplinary hearing for the

6

September 9, 2013 incident, are not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his

7

administrative remedies for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for the events of September 9, 2013.

8

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

9

de novo review of this case, including Plaintiff’s objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire

10

file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

11

proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

12

1.

13

The findings and recommendations issued on February 7, 2024, (Doc. 64), are
ADOPTED IN FULL.

14

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for law library access, (Doc. 46), is DENIED.

15

3.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, (Doc. 37), is

16
17

GRANTED.
4.

18
19

This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

5.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 17, 2024

23
24
25
26
27
28
2