(PC) Outhoummountry v. Pascua et al, No. 1:2022cv00104 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER REFERRING the Matter for an Evidentiary Hearing; ORDER DECLINING to Consider the Findings and Recommendations Denying Defendants' Exhaustion Motion for Summary Judgment Until After the Evidentiary Hearing is Completed 48 61 signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/4/2024.(Xiong, J.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 STACEN OMAR OUTHOUMMOUNTRY, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. PASCUA, et al., Defendants. 17 Case No. 1:22-cv-0104 JLT SAB (PC) ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ORDER DECLINING TO CONSIDER THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EXHAUSTION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNTIL AFTER THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS COMPLETED (Docs. 48, 61) 18 Stacen Omar Outhoummountry seeks to hold N. Pascua and M. Childress liable for 19 deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 20 Defendants seek summary judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 21 remedies prior to filing this action. (Doc. 48.) 22 23 The magistrate judge found Defendants carried “their initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies.” (Doc. 61 at 7.) However, the magistrate 24 judge found there was conflicting declaratory evidence regarding whether Plaintiff submitted a 25 grievance that was not properly processed. (See id. at 7-11.) The magistrate judge observed, 26 27 “The nature of the declarations cannot be resolved by way of summary judgment because the Court cannot weigh the credibility of Plaintiff’s declaration that he submitted a grievance on 28 1 1 January 25, 2019, against Defendants’ evidence that he did not submit a grievance….” (Id. at 10- 2 11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found “summary judgment was not appropriate on the issue 3 of exhaustion.” (Id. at 11.) The magistrate judge found the Court should conduct an “evidentiary 4 hearing to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies relative to his claim in 5 this action,” and recommended the motion for summary judgment be denied. (Id. at 12.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that 7 any objections were due within 21 days of the date of service. (Doc. 61 at 12.) The Court also 8 advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 9 waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 10 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections were filed and the 11 time to do so has passed. 12 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 13 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 14 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Court DECLINES to consider the Findings and Recommendations at this 16 time. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary 17 hearing under Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). 18 2. Ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DEFERRED until the 19 evidentiary hearing is completed and supplementary or amended findings and 20 recommendations are issued. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 4, 2024 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.