(PC) McCoy v. Holguin et al, No. 1:2015cv00768 - Document 96 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 91 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING IN PART Defendants' 75 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/24/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKEITH L. MCCOY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-MJS v. A. HOLGUIN, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. 16 (Doc. No. 91) Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States 20 District Court for the Eastern District of California. 21 On January 19, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that defendants’ July 17, 2017 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) be to 23 granted in part because plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to 24 certain defendants prior to filing suit. (Doc. No. 75.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 25 recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa 26 Maria, Bennett, and DeLuna. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion be 27 denied in all other respects. (Id.) 28 ///// 1 1 Plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations in which he argued, in 2 part, that it is undisputed that he did exhaust his claim against defendant Bennett. (Doc. No. 92 at 3 3.) Additionally, plaintiff objects to the findings that he did not exhaust administrative remedies 4 as to defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna, arguing that the inmate grievance 5 form failed to provide him with sufficient space to do so. (Id. at 4–5.) Plaintiff also argues that in 6 his inmate appeal, he requested the identities of the staff members who oversaw the buildings 7 where these alleged events took place, and that request was sufficient to exhaust his 8 administrative remedies as to defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna. (Id. at 5– 9 6.) No other objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 11 de novo review of this case. However, upon review of the entire file, it appears that defendants 12 have conceded that plaintiff did, in fact, exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claim 13 against defendant Bennett. (See Doc. No. 90 at 9, fn. 1.) In this regard, defendants state that 14 “Nurse Bennett therefore withdraws her request for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 15 administrative remedies.” (Id.) Accordingly, the granting of summary judgment in favor of 16 defendant Bennett is not appropriate, and the court declines to adopt that aspect of the magistrate 17 judge’s findings and recommendation. (Doc. No. 91 at 12.) 18 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the remainder of the findings and 19 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The granting of summary 20 judgment in favor of defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna is appropriate in light 21 of the evidence presented on summary judgment. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and 22 recommendations with respect to these defendants do not raise any issue of law or fact that would 23 suggest otherwise. Though plaintiff requested the identities of the staff members who oversaw 24 the building where the alleged events took place, he did not make any allegations in his inmate 25 grievance that additional individuals witnessed the incident but failed to intervene. For that 26 reason, claims against defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna must be dismissed 27 due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 28 ///// 2 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The court adopts the findings and recommendations filed January 19, 2018 (Doc. No. 3 4 91) in part; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) is granted in part and 5 denied in part as follows: 6 a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa 7 Maria, and DeLuna and they are terminated from this action; 8 b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) is denied as to 9 defendant Bennett and in all other respects. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3