(PC) Jackson v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2017cv00027 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 23 , 34 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/24/2018: This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMORIA JACKSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 M. LUNES, et al., 15 16 No. 1:17-cv-00027-DAD-JDP ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 23, 34) 17 18 Plaintiff Demoria Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 12, 2018, defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 56, arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative 23 remedies before filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 23.) On August 16, 2018, the assigned 24 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion 25 be granted in part after finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust certain claims. (Doc. No. 34.) 26 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 27 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 13.) On September 28 4, 2018, plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension of time in which to file objections. (Doc. No. 1 1 35.) On September 5, 2018, the assigned magistrate granted plaintiff’s request in part, and 2 permitted plaintiff until September 18, 2018 to file objections. (Doc. No. 36.) To date, no 3 objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so 4 has now passed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 6 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 7 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 8 analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued August 16, 2018 (Doc. No. 34) are adopted 11 12 in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 23) is granted in part and denied 13 in part without prejudice; 14 3. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s due process claim against defendant Lunes; 15 4. If defendants intend to file a second motion for summary judgment on the issue of 16 exhaustion, they are directed to request an evidentiary hearing on that issue within 17 twenty-one days after service of this order; and 18 19 20 21 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 24, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.