(PC) Outhoummountry v. Pascua et al

Filing 62

ORDER REFERRING the Matter for an Evidentiary Hearing; ORDER DECLINING to Consider the Findings and Recommendations Denying Defendants' Exhaustion Motion for Summary Judgment Until After the Evidentiary Hearing is Completed 48 61 signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/4/2024.(Xiong, J.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

STACEN OMAR
OUTHOUMMOUNTRY,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
PASCUA, et al.,
Defendants.

17

Case No. 1:22-cv-0104 JLT SAB (PC)
ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER FOR
AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
ORDER DECLINING TO CONSIDER THE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EXHAUSTION
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
UNTIL AFTER THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING IS COMPLETED
(Docs. 48, 61)

18
Stacen Omar Outhoummountry seeks to hold N. Pascua and M. Childress liable for
19
deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
20
Defendants seek summary judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
21
remedies prior to filing this action. (Doc. 48.)
22
23

The magistrate judge found Defendants carried “their initial burden of demonstrating that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies.” (Doc. 61 at 7.) However, the magistrate

24
judge found there was conflicting declaratory evidence regarding whether Plaintiff submitted a
25
grievance that was not properly processed. (See id. at 7-11.) The magistrate judge observed,
26
27

“The nature of the declarations cannot be resolved by way of summary judgment because the
Court cannot weigh the credibility of Plaintiff’s declaration that he submitted a grievance on

28
1

1

January 25, 2019, against Defendants’ evidence that he did not submit a grievance….” (Id. at 10-

2

11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found “summary judgment was not appropriate on the issue

3

of exhaustion.” (Id. at 11.) The magistrate judge found the Court should conduct an “evidentiary

4

hearing to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies relative to his claim in

5

this action,” and recommended the motion for summary judgment be denied. (Id. at 12.)

6

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that

7

any objections were due within 21 days of the date of service. (Doc. 61 at 12.) The Court also

8

advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the

9

waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.

10

2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections were filed and the

11

time to do so has passed.

12

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

13

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations

14

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

15

1.

The Court DECLINES to consider the Findings and Recommendations at this

16

time. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary

17

hearing under Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014).

18

2.

Ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DEFERRED until the

19

evidentiary hearing is completed and supplementary or amended findings and

20

recommendations are issued.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2024

24
25
26
27
28
2