Joshua Blocker v. Joel Solis ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA BLOCKER, Case No. CV 20-11764-MWF (AGR) 12 Plaintiff ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 JOEL SOLIS, et al., JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the 18 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Motion”), the Report and Recommendation 19 of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending granting the Motion (“Report,” 20 Docket No. 59), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (“Objections,” Docket No. 62), 21 Defendants’ Response to the Objections (“Response,” Docket No. 63), and other 22 relevant records on file. 23 Preliminarily, the Court notes that although styled as “Objections,” Plaintiff 24 appears to oppose Defendants’ Motion rather than object to the Report. (See, e.g., 25 Docket No. 62 at 1-3 (stating that “Defendants contend[]” and “Defendants also 26 contend,” and then responding to each contention). However, as noted in the Report 27 and Defendants’ Response, the Magistrate Judge twice extended Plaintiff’s time to 28 file an opposition to the Motion, but no such opposition was ever filed. (Docket No. 1 59 at 2, 5 & n.3 (noting that failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to 2 granting it); Docket No. 63 at 2-3). Moreover, Plaintiff’s failure to identify any 3 particular portion of the Report to which he objects is fatal to the Objections and his 4 Complaint. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“The statute [pertaining 5 to objections review] does not on its face require any review at all, by either the 6 district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an 7 objection.”). 8 Regardless, giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the Court construes his 9 belated responses to Defendants’ arguments in their Motion as objections to the 10 Report and, although not required even so construed, briefly discusses Plaintiff’s 11 two points. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the 12 district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each 13 objection”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a 14 cursory district court order summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, 15 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). 16 First, Plaintiff contends that his excessive-force claims are not barred by Heck 17 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because the results of his disciplinary 18 proceedings would not and could not end with a guilty verdict in criminal court. 19 (Docket No. 62 at 1-2). But, as explained in the Report, under Supreme Court law 20 “[t]he Heck bar applies to prison disciplinary convictions that resulted in loss of 21 good-time credits.” (Docket No. 59 at 7 (citing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 22 646 (1997)). The Report then went on to provide a detailed analysis of how 23 Plaintiff’s “excessive[-]force claims cannot coexist with his prison disciplinary 24 finding” and thus success on those claims would necessarily invalidate the 25 disciplinary conviction and credit forfeiture in violation of Heck. (Docket No. 59 at 26 7-12 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Plaintiff has failed to 27 overcome that conclusion. 28 /// 1 Second, Plaintiff appears to contend that he is the member of a protected class 2 || as he is a part of a mental-health program, and once he makes staff members aware 3 || of his suicidal ideations they must alert a crisis unit and place him in a holding 4 || module. (Docket No. 62 at 2). The Court declines to address the argument because 5 || it relies on facts not alleged in the Complaint, now brought for the first time over a 6 || year after Defendants’ Motion was filed, and over three years since the Complaint 7 || was filed. (Docket Nos. 1, 45, 62). It is simply too late to raise a new claim. See, 8 || e.g., Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court is not 9 || required to consider evidence presented for the first time in objections); Lee v. City 10 || of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (generally, the court must limit 11 || its review to the operative pleading); Lutz v. Valenzuela, No. CV 11-104-CBM PJW, 12 || 2013 WL 5539551, at *3 n.6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013) (electing not to consider 13 || arguments and evidence raised for the first time in objections “in light of the fact 14 || that this case is almost three years old and discovery has closed”). 15 The objections are overruled. 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 17 (1) The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and 18 || conclusions; 19 (2) Defendant’s Motion (Docket No. 45) is GRANTED; and 20 (3) Judgment be entered DISMISSING this action, without prejudice as to 21 || the excessive-force claims against Defendants Solis, Clark, and Chirinos, and with 22 || prejudice as to the deliberate-indifference claim against Defendant Galapon. 24 |) Dated: March 25, 2024 Y LW, Vhhép Ae 95 ICHAEL W. FITZGERALD United States District Jndge 26 27 28