Opinion
Former Case No.: 1:16-cv-00487-AWI-SAB New Case No.: 1:16-cv-00487-SAB
01-10-2018
ERNESTO PASILLAS, Plaintiff, v. C/O SOTO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 18) ORDER REASSIGNING ACTION
Plaintiff Ernesto Pasillas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 5.) Shortly thereafter, on June 16, 2016, the then-assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Soto for the failure to intervene while Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 6.) The magistrate judge further found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Defendants Wilson and Moss. (Id.) Plaintiff was directed to notify the Court in writing that he was willing to proceed only against Defendant Soto, or to amend his complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's order. (Id.)
On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document stating that he did not wish to amend his complaint, but asserting that he had pleaded sufficient allegations against Defendant Soto and Defendant Wilson. (Doc. No. 7.) The case was then re-assigned to the currently-assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 8.)
On September 19, 2016, the magistrate judge dismissed Defendants Wilson and Moss for the failure to state a cognizable claim against them based on the reasoning of the prior screening order, and ordered that the action would proceed only against Defendant Soto on Plaintiff's failure to protect claim. (Doc. No. 9.) The case then proceeded on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Soto.
On April 13, 2017, Defendant Soto appeared and consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 15.) On May 8, 2017, Defendant Soto answered the complaint. (Doc. No. 16.) On May 9, 2017, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. No. 17.)
On November 30, 2017, the magistrate judge reinstated Plaintiff's previously dismissed claims, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as Plaintiff had done here. (Doc. No. 18.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss those reinstated claims. (Id.) The parties were given fourteen days to file his objections to those findings and recommendations. No objections were filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. The undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 30, 2017 and filed on December 1, 2017 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full;///
2. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Wilson and Moss are dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
3. This action shall proceed solely on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Soto for the failure to intervene while Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2018
4. All parties having consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), (Doc. Nos. 5, 15), the undersigned shall take no further action in this case; and
5. This Court reassigns the action to United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone for all further proceedings. All further papers filed in this action shall bear the new case number: 1:16-cv-00487-SAB.
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE