(PC) Williams v. Navarro

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLLIN WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:18-cv-0611 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, REGARDING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 NAVARRO, et al., (Docs. 29, 52) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Collin Williams seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights with 18 the following claims: (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 19 Santiesteban1 and Cortez; (2) failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment 20 against Navarro and Sanchez; (3) deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment 21 against Navarro, Andrzejewski,2 and Brown; (4) assault and battery in violation of state law 22 against Santiesteban and Cortez; and (5) medical negligence against Andrzejewski and Brown. 23 (See Doc. 12 at 2.) Defendants seek summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to 24 exhaust his administrative remedies for the claims arising under federal law and did not comply 25 with the California Government Tort Claims Act to proceed with his state law claims. (Doc. 29.) 26 The assigned magistrate judge found Defendants satisfied their burden to show Plaintiff 27 1 Erroneously sued as “Santiestban.” 28 2 Erroneously sued as “Andrezejewski.” 1 | had available administrative remedies and he failed to exhaust the remedies prior to filing suit. 2 | (Doc. 52 at 11.) In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not demonstrate the 3 || remedies “were effectively unavailable to him.” (/d.) Finally, the magistrate judge found 4 | Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information “for adequate investigation of the claims,” on his 5 | California Government Claim Form, and Plaintiff did not dispute that he failed to comply with 6 | the requirements California’s Government Claims Act. (Ud. at 13-14.) Therefore, the magistrate 7 || judge recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (/d. at 14.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 9 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 52 at 14.) The Court advised Plaintiff the “failure 10 | to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 11 | magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 12 | (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 14 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 15 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 15, 2024 (Doc. 52) are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. 19 3. Plaintiffs federal claims are DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to exhaust 20 administrative remedies. 21 4. Plaintiffs state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 22 comply with the requirements of California’s Government Claims Act. 23 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ March 19, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28