(PC) Williams v. Baker et al, No. 1:2016cv01540 - Document 161 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 146 Findings and Recommendations in Full signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 03/27/2024. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Williams v. Baker et al Doc. 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-NODJ-HBK (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL v. (Doc. 146) CHRISTOPHER BAKER and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the 18 district court grant Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 146.) Plaintiff filed 19 objections on November 21, 2023. (Doc. 147.) 20 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this 21 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations 22 to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s arguments do not meaningfully 23 call into question the reasoning provided in the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff contends 24 that this Court long ago found Defendants had waived the present Bivens argument. (Doc. No. 25 147 at 1-3). Plaintiff is correct that in a March 26, 2019 Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s 26 Findings and Recommendation, the Court found that Defendants had waived the argument with 27 respect to their July 3, 2018 Motion for Summary Adjudication because Defendants only raised it 28 in objection to the Court’s Findings and Recommendations, and had not raised it before the Dockets.Justia.com 1 magistrate judge. (See Doc. No. 61 at 2). The Court did not make a finding, as Plaintiff implies, 2 that the issue was waived for all future purposes in this litigation. Notably, the Court declined to 3 rule on the underlying legal question regarding extension of Bivens and noted that the Ninth 4 Circuit had not yet ruled on the issue. (Id. n.1). As the magistrate judge correctly noted, because 5 the Ninth Circuit has now expressly ruled that a Bivens remedy may not be extended to Eighth 6 Amendment excessive use of force claims, the Court is bound to apply that precedent. (Doc. No. 7 146 at 5-6). Plaintiff fails to cite any legal authority that would warrant disregarding clearly 8 applicable and binding precedent. 9 Thus, the Court ORDERS the findings and recommendations filed on November 7, 2023 10 (Doc. 146), are ADOPTED IN FULL. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: March 27, 2024. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.