Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Franklin v. Jimenez

United States District Court, S.D. California

March 22, 2017

GREGORY FRANKLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
J. JIMINEZ, et. al., Defendant.

         ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORTS; OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS; GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINRY INJUNCTION [DOC. NOS. 43, 52, 57, 58, 60, 61]

          JOHN A. HOUSTON, United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 43), Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction (Doc No. 52), Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 57), and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Doc. No. 60). The Honorable Bernard G. Skomal, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) recommending the Court deny the motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 58), and a separate Report recommending the Court grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Doc. No. 61). After careful consideration of the pleadings and the parties' submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's Reports, and GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, .

         BACKGROUND

         On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Finding the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C section 1915, granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and provided Plaintiff 45 days to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 21, 2011. Finding Plaintiff again failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court, in an order dated January 27, 2012, dismissed the First Amended Complaint and provided Plaintiff 45 days to file a Second Amended Complaint which cured the deficiencies noted. Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint and the Court dismissed the action.

         On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen his case which this Court denied. Plaintiff appealed the order, and the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the action to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on March 20, 2015. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants (1) violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they forced him to use an upper bunk which caused him unnecessary pain and suffering; (2) Officer Maciel violated his First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to deliver a package to Plaintiff; and (3) Lieutenant Jimenez violated Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he found Plaintiff guilty of a rules violation. He names J. Jimenez, S. Garcia, T. Molina, S. Ramos, L. Hugley and C. Maciel as defendants.

         On August 7, 2015, Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint. On December 10, 2015, the Honorable Bernard G. Skomal, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report recommending this Court deny Defendants' motion to dismiss. This Court adopted the Report and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendant filed an answer to the SAC on March 4, 2016.

         On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and filed a request for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2016. Defendants filed an opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Judge Skomal issued a Report recommending this Court deny Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. No objections were filed.

         On August 5, 2016, Defendants file an opposition and cross motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend on August 29, 2016. Judge Skomal issued a Report recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a reply to the motion for summary judgment and objections to the Report. Defendants' filed a reply to Plaintiff's objection.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         The district court's role in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection is made, ” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. The party objecting to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically setting forth which of the magistrate judge's findings the party contests. See Fed.R.Civ. P. 72(b). It is well-settled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court may adopt those parts of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motions for Summary Judgment

         Plaintiff argues the uncontested facts show Defendants violated his First, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.