(PC) Washington v. Mohamed et al, No. 2:2008cv00386 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending that defendants' 54 Renewed Motion to Dismiss be denied and they be ordered to file an Answer, signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 12/30/2013. These F/Rs are SUBMITTED to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within 14 days after being served with these F/Rs, any party may file written Objections with Court. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Washington v. Mohamed et al Doc. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WASHINGTON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SALEM MOHAMMED, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 No. 2:08-cv-0386-KJM-CMK-P / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In response to plaintiff’s amended complaint, the defendants originally filed a 20 motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The undersigned issued 21 findings and recommendations that the motion to dismiss be granted. The District Court adopted 22 that recommendation, and the motion was granted. Plaintiff appealed that decision, and the 23 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further 24 development of the record. The parties then filed supplemental briefs with additional evidence 25 supporting their positions regarding exhaustion. The undersigned then issued new findings and 26 recommendations that the motion to dismiss be granted. The District Court did not adopt that 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommendation, denied the motion to dismiss, and referred the matter back to the undersigned 2 for further proceedings. 3 Defendants have now filed a new motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 4 administrative remedies. In addition, they are requesting discovery and an evidentiary hearing on 5 the motion to dismiss. Defendants argue the court should order an evidentiary hearing to 6 evaluate the credibility of witnesses and make a credibility determination. However, the District 7 Court has already determined “it is improper for the court entertaining a 12(b) motion to make 8 credibility determinations when, as in the instant case, the court is presented with differing 9 versions of events.” (Order, Doc. 52 at 2, citing Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 10 11 12 13 14 F.2d 1280, 1284-85 (9th Cir. 1973)). As the District Court has already addressed the issue defendants raise in the current motion to dismiss, the undersigned finds no basis in which to grant their request. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 54) be denied, and the defendants be ordered to file an answer. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 19 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 20 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 24 DATED: December 30, 2013 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 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.