(PC) Torres v. Quick

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EDWARD TORRES, Case No. 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 10 RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING v. THAT CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 11 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JAYSON QUICK, et al., 12 JUDGMENT BE GRANTED Defendants. 13 Docs. 70, 95

15 Plaintiff Edward Torres is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 16 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1, 5. The matter was referred to a United 17 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 Following the screening of plaintiff’s complaint and plaintiff’s notice to proceed on the 19 claims found cognizable in the court’s revised screening order, this action proceeds on 20 plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Quick, Garza, 21 Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez (collectively, “correctional officer defendants”); his 22 Fourteenth Amendment failure to protect claims against the correctional officer defendants; and 23 his Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Ontiveros for deliberate indifference to his 24 serious medical needs. Docs. 62, 76. 25 On September 25, 2024, the correctional officer defendants filed a motion for summary 26 27 judgement arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this 28 lawsuit. Doc. 70. The motion was fully briefed. Docs. 74, 75. On May 23, 2025, the assigned 1 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the correctional 2 officer defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Doc. 95. Specifically, the 3 findings and recommendations recommended that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Quick, 4 Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 5 exhaust administrative remedies at the time of filing this lawsuit.1 Id. at 13. The findings and 6 recommendations contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty 7 days after service. Id. at 13. Plaintiff’s timely objections, dated June 17, 2025, were filed on 8 the docket on June 25, 2025. Doc. 97. 9 In the two-sentence objections, plaintiff states that he objects to the findings and 10 recommendations and asks whether a dismissal without prejudice would allow him to correct 11 his administrative remedies and refile his suit, or whether it would dismiss the action 12 completely. Id. at 1. Plaintiff is advised that a “dismissal without prejudice is not an 13 adjudication on the merits and does not have res judicata [claim preclusion] effect.” Vincze v. 14 Robinson, 103 F. App’x 152, 153 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 15 16 U.S. 384, 396 (1990); In re Marino, 181 F.3d 1142, 1144 (9th Cir. 1999)). Thus, as the 17 dismissal of his claims in this case against the correctional officer defendants is without 18 prejudice, the dismissal by itself does not preclude plaintiff from refiling a claim after it is 19 timely exhausted. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a 21 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s 22 objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 23 record and proper analysis. 24 /// 25 ///

26 1 A previously imposed stay as to defendant Ontiveros due to bankruptcy proceedings in the 27 Southern District of Texas has since been lifted. Doc. 79, 94. However, defendant Ontiveros, 28 who is represented by separate counsel, did not join in the correctional officer defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2025, Doc. 95, are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The correctional officer defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Doc. 70, is 5 granted; 6 3. Plaintiffs claims against defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and 7 Martinez are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative 8 remedies at the time of filing this lawsuit; and 9 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge. 10 11 12 || IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 13 Dated: _ September 2, 2025 4h 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28