(PC) Mitchell v. Beard et al, No. 1:2015cv01512 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Claims and Defendants Consistent with Magistrate Judge's Prior Order 44 in Light of Williams Decision, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/15/17. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. J. BEARD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:15-cv-01512-DAD-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PRIOR ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS DECISION (ECF NO. 44.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 17 18 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 John Edward Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 5, 2015, 23 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 24 25 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and no other parties have appeared. (ECF No. 6.) 26 The court previously screened Plaintiff’s complaint before any defendants appeared. 27 The court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment conditions-of- 28 confinement claim against defendant C/O M. Hunter, and dismissed all other claims and 1 1 defendants. (ECF No. 44.) The case now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint 2 against defendant C/O Hunter. 3 On August 31, 2017, the court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff stated a 4 cognizable Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against defendant C/O M. 5 Hunter, but no other claims against any of the Defendants. (ECF No. 44.) In the order, the 6 magistrate judge dismissed Defendants Munoz, Ornelas, Sanchez, Barella, Thytie, Fernandez, 7 Roska, Laguatan, Rodriguez, and 3 Doe Defendants (nurses) from this action, for Plaintiff’s 8 failure to state any claims against them. (Id.) The magistrate judge also dismissed Plaintiff’s 9 claims for excessive force, medical care, and due process, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 10 claim. (Id.) 11 As described below, in light of Ninth Circuit authority, this court is recommending that 12 the assigned district judge dismiss Defendants Munoz, Ornelas, Sanchez, Barella, Thytie, 13 Fernandez, Roska, Laguatan, Rodriguez, and 3 Doe Defendants (nurses) from this action, and 14 dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force, medical care, and due process, for Plaintiff’s 15 failure to state a claim under § 1983, consistent with the August 31, 2017, order by the 16 magistrate judge at the screening stage. 17 II. WILLIAMS V. KING 18 On November 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held 19 that a magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss a prisoner’s case for failure to state a 20 claim at the screening stage where the Plaintiff had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 21 and defendants had not yet been served. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that “28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all 23 plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before 24 jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court 25 would otherwise hear.” Id. at 501. 26 Here, Defendants were not served at the time the court issued its order dismissing 27 claims and defendants, and therefore had not appeared or consented to magistrate judge 28 /// 2 1 jurisdiction. Accordingly, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims 2 and defendants based solely on Plaintiff’s consent. 3 In light of the holding in Williams, this court will recommend to the assigned district 4 judge that he dismiss the defendants and claims previously dismissed by this court, for the 5 reasons provided in the court’s screening order. 6 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 The court finds that this case should proceed only against defendant C/O M. Hunter, for 8 subjecting Plaintiff to adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 9 Amendment, for housing Plaintiff in a bare, cold, and unsanitary cell without clothing, and all 10 other claims and defendants should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, for 11 the reasons provided in the court’s August 31, 2017, order. 12 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. 14 In light of the holding in Williams, the district judge dismiss the claims and defendants previously dismissed by the magistrate judge on August 31, 2017; 15 2. This case now proceed with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on 16 March 13, 2017, against defendant C/O M. Hunter, for subjecting Plaintiff to 17 adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for 18 housing Plaintiff in a bare, cold, and unsanitary cell without clothing; 19 3. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure to state 20 a claim under § 1983 upon which relief may be granted, for the reasons provided 21 in the magistrate judge’s August 31, 2017, order; 22 4. Defendants Munoz, Ornelas, Sanchez, Barella, Thytie, Fernandez, Roska, 23 Laguatan, Rodriguez, and 3 Doe Defendants (nurses) be dismissed from this 24 action for Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims under § 1983 against them upon 25 which relief may be granted; and 26 5. dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 27 28 Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force, medical care, and due process be /// 3 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 3 (14) days of the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 4 written objections with the court. 5 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 7 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 8 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
