Luis Manuel Garces v. M. Gamboa, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00392
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MANUEL GARCES, Case No. 1:21-cv-0392 JLT EPG (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS ALLISON, GAMBOA, AND BABB 14 M. GAMBOA., et al. (Docs. 214, 279) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Luis Manuel Garces asserts he suffered violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at 18 Corcoran State Prison and proceeds on claims for: (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth 19 Amendment, (2) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and (3) procedural due process 20 in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Docs. 18, 21; see also Doc. 80.) Defendants Allison, 21 Gamboa, and Babb moved for summary judgment on the claims raised against them pursuant to 22 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting these “Defendants did not subject 23 Plaintiff to excessive force, violate his due process rights, or otherwise violate Plaintiff’s 24 constitutional rights in any way.” (Doc. 214 at 1; see also Doc. 214-1.) 25 In a sur-reply to the motion, Plaintiff requested additional discovery be permitted pursuant 26 to Rule 56(d). (Doc. 249.) The magistrate judge observed that the Court issued a scheduling 27 order on October 27, 2022; and the Court ordered “all discovery must be completed by August 24, 2023, more than six months before Plaintiff’s current Rule 56(d) request.” (Doc. 279 at 8, 1 citing Doc. 78.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not diligently pursue discovery, despite 2 “ample time and opportunity” to do so. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 3 Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery be denied. (Id.) 4 Evaluating the merits of the motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge found 5 that “even assuming Plaintiff’s facts as true, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that 6 Defendant Allison directly ordered Defendants Cathey, Hernandez, Huerta, and Wolf to use 7 excessive force against Plaintiff during the March 2019 DRB hearing.” (Doc. 279 at 12.) In 8 addition, the magistrate judge determined “Plaintiff has not presented evidence that supports the 9 inference that the criminal charges against Plaintiff were based on fabricated evidence,” such that 10 there was a due process violation by Gamboa and Babb. (Id. at 17.) Therefore, the magistrate 11 judge recommended the motion for summary judgment be granted. (Id. at 18.) 12 Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, asserting the magistrate 13 judge erred in the denial of discovery and recommending the motion for summary judgment be 14 granted.1 (Doc. 298.) Defendants filed a response to the objections, asserting the documents 15 provided by Plaintiff show that he was able to conduct discovery, and the magistrate judge’s 16 findings related to the merits of the motion were proper. (Doc. 300.) 17 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 18 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter—including Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ 19 response—the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 20 and proper analysis. Plaintiff does not show the magistrate judge erred in finding that he was not 21 diligent in seeking discovery, and he fails to show additional discovery was necessary to address 22 the arguments raised in the limited motion for summary judgment. See Family Home & Fin. Ctr. 23 v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (identifying the requirements 24 to show discovery is necessary under Rule 56(d)). Finally, Plaintiff does not establish any 25 genuine issue of material fact related to his claims against Allison, Gamboa, and Babb. 26 /// 27 1 Plaintiff’s objections total 225 pages, including 24 pages of argument and 101 pages of exhibits. In an effort to conserve the Court’s judicial resources, the Court declines to summarize the specific arguments 1 Thus, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 26, 2024 (Doc. 279) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. Plaintiffs request for further discovery (Doc. 249) is DENIED. 5 3. The motion for summary judgment by Defendants Allison, Gamboa, and Babb 6 (Doc. 214) is GRANTED. 7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate Allison, 8 Gamboa, and Babb as defendants. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: _ September 29, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28