(PC) Harris v. Pimentel, et al., No. 1:2013cv01354 - Document 86 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ***DISREGARD*** ORDER ADOPTING 64 Findings and Recommendations to GRANT Defendant's 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/15/16. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(PC) Harris v. Pimentel, et al. Doc. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DARRELL HARRIS, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 Case No. 1:13-cv-01354-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. S. ESCAMILLA, et al., (ECF NOS. 44, 64) Defendants. 14 CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 25, 2016, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant Defendant Escamilla’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim as unexhausted. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff has filed his objections, and Defendant has filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 80, 85.) Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned finds no reason to depart from the magistrate judge’s conclusion. Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim is premised on Defendant Escamilla’s remark that Plaintiff is a “rag-head Black Muslim and a terrorist” during a January 2013 cell search. In opposition to Defendant Escamilla’s motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff was required to present evidence or argument supporting his contention that he did exhaust his Dockets.Justia.com 1 administrative remedies as to this claim or that those remedies were effectively 2 unavailable to him. The magistrate judge found that, though the evidence established 3 that Plaintiff was aware of the remark on the day it was allegedly made, Plaintiff’s 4 grievance did not reference it, thus failing to put the prison on notice of Plaintiff’s claim. 5 The magistrate judge also found that Plaintiff’s argument that administrative remedies 6 were unavailable to him was unconvincing. In the objections now before the Court, 7 Plaintiff has not submitted any new or relevant argument sufficient to justify departure 8 from the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 10 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed 11 the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 12 record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 15 1. The January 25, 2016, findings and recommendations (ECF No. 64) are ADOPTED in full; 16 17 2. Defendant’s July 1, 2015, motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED; 18 19 3. Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim is dismissed for failure to exhaust 20 administrative remedies; and 21 4. This action is to remain open. IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill April 15, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.