Grigsby v. Munguia, et al.

Filing 69

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 03/30/16 ADOPTING IN FULL 66 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JONATHAN GRIGSBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0789 GEB AC P

v.

ORDER

M. MUNGUIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 9, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24
25

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

2

analysis.1

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 9, 2016, are adopted in full;

5

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) is denied; and

6

3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

7

proceedings.

8

Dated: March 30, 2016

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent defendant argues that plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendant Baker is
unexhausted because plaintiff named four officers in his administrative appeal but did not name
Baker, defendant fails to address the magistrate judge’s finding that prison officials became aware
of defendant Baker’s involvement in the excessive force incident when they interviewed Baker in
connection with plaintiff’s disciplinary violation resulting from the same incident. See ECF No.
66 at 19-20; Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 657-658 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissing a claim for
failure to exhaust does not serve the goals of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement where prison
officials have had the opportunity to address the grievance, correct their own errors, and develop
an administrative record). See also id. at 659 (rejecting defendants’ argument that because
plaintiff’s grievance “related on its face” only to the actions of one non-defendant doctor, the
grievance did not exhaust plaintiff’s claim relating to actions of the two defendant doctors).
2