(PC) Holguin v. Bell et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 45 Findings and Recommendations GRANTING 29 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/13/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIPE ROMAN HOLGUIN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
BELL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-0757 JLT HBK (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Docs. 29, 45)

Felipe Roman Holguin is a state prisoner and seeks to hold correctional officers at Corcoran

18

State Prison liable for violating his civil rights. Plaintiff asserts a toilet malfunction, and the resulting

19

condition of his cell, violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. (See generally Doc. 1.) The

20

matter was referred to the assigned United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On July 30, 2020, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that

23

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

24

(Doc. 29.) The assigned magistrate judge found the CDCR had an administrative grievance process

25

available to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims through the administrative process prior

26

to filing suit. (Doc. 45 at 8-12.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined there were no “special

27

circumstances” justifying the failure to exhaust, and Plaintiff failed to create a dispute of fact that his

28

failure to exhaust was excused. (Id. at 12-20.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the
1

1
2

motion for summary judgment be granted on December 10, 2021. (Doc. 45.)
The Findings and Recommendations served on Plaintiff contained notice that any objections

3

were due within 14 days. (Doc. 45 at 21.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on December 27, 2021.

4

(Doc. 46.) Plaintiff asserts that he submitted several 602 complaints regarding the toilet and condition

5

of his cell, and believes the Court overlooked the first dated August 1, 2018. (Id. at 1-3.) However,

6

the magistrate judge noted the complaint in this action concerned a toilet incident that began on

7

August 31, 2018—which Plaintiff does not dispute—and as a result, the first 602 complaint identified

8

by Plaintiff predated the underlying incident. (See Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 45 at 9-10.) Plaintiff’s objections

9

do not undermine the ultimate finding that he “failed to exhaust his remedies as to the August 31, 2018

10
11

toilet malfunction.” (See Doc. 45 at 20.)
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case.

12

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be

13

supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

14

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 10, 2021 (Doc. 45) are
ADOPTED in full;

15
16

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED;

17

3.

The action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

18

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 13, 2022

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2