(PC) Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al, No. 1:2014cv01714 - Document 69 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 55 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 43 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER REFERRING Back to Magistrate Judge for Evidentiary Hearing signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/16/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, 12 No. 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SALVATORE, 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND REFERRING BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 43, 55) 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis1 in this civil rights action brought 17 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 21, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 20 21 recommendations recommending defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that 22 plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit be denied, and that 23 the matter be referred back to him for an evidentiary hearing in order to resolve relevant disputed 24 factual issues surrounding the issue of exhaustion. (Doc. No. 55.) These findings and 25 recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 26 filed within fourteen days, and any replies to such objections were to be filed within fourteen days 27 28 1 Plaintiff was previously proceeding pro se as well, but is currently represented by counsel. (Doc. No. 64.) 1 1 thereafter. Plaintiff initially sought an extension of time to file objections to the findings and 2 recommendations, which was granted. (Doc. Nos. 57, 58.) On February 2, 2017, however, 3 plaintiff notified the court he would not be filing objections to the findings and recommendations. 4 (Doc. No. 61.) Defendants filed no objections and the time in which to do so has passed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 6 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire case, the 7 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 8 proper analysis. Defendants are entitled to have disputed factual questions relating to exhaustion 9 resolved through a preliminary proceeding. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169–71 (9th Cir. 10 2014). Therefore, the case will be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for an 11 evidentiary hearing and further proceedings as deemed necessary and appropriate. 12 For these reasons: 13 1. The undersigned adopts the findings and recommendations filed on December 21, 2016 14 15 16 17 (Doc. No. 55) in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 43), filed July 11, 2016, is denied; and 3. The undersigned refers the matter back to the magistrate judge for an evidentiary 18 hearing on the issue of exhaustion and further proceedings as deemed necessary and appropriate. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 16, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 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.