(PC) Daniels v. Valencia et al, No. 1:2017cv00492 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/25/2018. (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 DAVID DANIELS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-00492-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. J. VALENCIA, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 23, 30) 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Daniels is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 26, 2018, defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia, Pano, Benavidez, Crabtree, 22 Johnson, and Madruga filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force 23 claim, contending that the claim is barred under the decisions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 24 477, 480 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997). (Doc. No. 19.) On July 27, 25 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 26 the motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 30.) The findings and recommendations were served 27 on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days 28 after service. (Id. at 11.) On August 30, 2018, defendants filed objections. (Doc. No. 31.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 2 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 3 defendants’ objections, the undersigned finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 4 by the record and proper analysis. 5 In their objections, defendants contend that “it is clear from the face of judicially 6 noticeable records that plaintiff was convicted of assaulting defendants.” (Doc. No. 31 at 2.) 7 This argument fails as a factual matter. The criminal information filed against plaintiff alleges 8 that he committed felony battery against Nicholas Vazquez, David Smith, and Jaime Vazquez. 9 (Doc. No. 23 at 11–12.) None of those victims is a defendant in this civil rights action. 10 Logically, plaintiff’s battery against those victims would appear to have little to do with whether 11 or not defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia, Pano, Benevidez, Crabtree, Johnson, and Madruga 12 used excessive force against plaintiff. Although defendants argue that “the identification of 13 Plaintiff’s particular victims in the Abstract of Judgment is immaterial to the Heck analysis,” they 14 cite no legal authority for this proposition. (Doc. No. 31 at 2.) To the contrary, it is not clear at 15 this stage that these incidents were connected in any way. Accordingly, the court concurs with 16 the findings and recommendations. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 30, 2018 (Doc. No. 30) are adopted in full; 2. The request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 20) filed by defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia, Pano, Benavidez, Crabtree, Johnson, and Madruga is granted in part, as follows: a. The court takes judicial notice of the Abstract of Judgment, and of those portions 23 of the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) that show the charge on which plaintiff 24 was found guilty, the victim of the charge, and the punishment imposed as a result 25 of the finding of guilt; 26 b. The court otherwise denies the request for judicial notice, including the request 27 that the court take notice of the underlying factual allegations in the RVR; 28 3. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 23) is granted; 2 1 4. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Owens, Torres, Valencia, Pano, Benavidez, 2 Crabtree, Johnson, and Madruga on January 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 19) is denied without 3 prejudice to defendants asserting preclusion pursuant to Heck at a later stage in the 4 proceedings; 5 6 7 8 9 10 5. Defendants are directed to file their answer to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order; and 6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 25, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.