Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05999/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05999-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO GUYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. McVICAR, et. al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 5999 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT ACTION BE CLOSED AND

JUDGMENT ENTERED.

 Francisco Guyton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 13, 2003, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment be denied and that Defendant Loo be granted leave to file a dispositive Motion on the

retaliation claim not addressed in the Motion. (Doc. 52.) On March 12, 2003, the District Court

adopted the Recommendation in full and granted Defendant Loo to and including April 16, 2003,

to file a dispositive motion. (Doc. 52.) 

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/28/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1The case was referred to Magistrate Goldner on August 9, 2003, (Doc. 58), and referred back to the

undersigned on May 2, 2004, (Doc. 65).

2

On April 14, 2003, Defendant Loo filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 55.) 

Magistrate Judge Goldner issued Findings and Recommendations on January 26, 2004, that the

Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.1 (Doc. 62.) The District Court adopted the

Findings and Recommendations in full on March 30, 2004, and on September 24, 2004,

Judgment was entered. (Docs. 64, 66.) 

On October 1, 2004, the District Court issued an Order “Setting Aside Judgment” which

did not recognize that Defendant Loo, for whom the Court granted Summary Judgment on March

30, 2004, was the last remaining defendant in the case. It appeared that the Order Setting Aside

Judgment was inadvertently issued. 

On June 6, 2005, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be

terminated. Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of time on June 21, 2005, stating that he

needed the time to procure medical records. A review of this motion, however, revealed that

Plaintiff did not serve the opposing party pursuant to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. See, Local Rule 5-135(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. Because the Motion indicated that

Plaintiff might be trying to obtain medical records for the purpose of re-litigating issues already

decided by the Court on Summary Judgment, rather than strike the motion, the Court denied it. 

Plaintiff filed his Response to the Order to Show Cause on July 22, 2005. Defendants did not

file a Response. 

B. DISCUSSION

As noted above, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be

closed and Judgment entered. The parties were to come forward with legal reasons why the

action should remain open given that there were no remaining parties to the case or claims for

relief. 

In his response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff states that he did not intend to relitigate claims already decided but instead only sought to obtain medical documents to show that

the chrono written by Dr. Loo was really done in retaliation against him. However, this

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

assertion is the very issue raised in the First Amended Complaint and decided by the Court in the

Findings and Recommendations that Defendant’s Motion for Summary be granted and the case

dismissed. 

The Findings and Recommendations held that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to

produce evidence of specific facts demonstrating that a dispute actually exists as to whether Dr. 

Loo retaliated against him. The Court recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment be

granted and the case dismissed. The District Court adopted the Recommendation on March 30,

2004, thereby granting the Motion for Summary Judgment on the one claim and defendant in the

action. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, his attempts to produce evidence at this stage in

the proceedings is precisely an attempt to re-litigate issues already resolved. Plaintiff provides no

legal justification as to why this case should continue given that the Court already resolved the

his claim against Defendant Loo in holding that there was no disputed issue of fact warranting

trial. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/28/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

C. RECOMMENDATION

Finding no legal reasons that the instant action should continue, the Court

RECOMMENDS that the case be DISMISSED and JUDGMENT be entered, thereby concluding

the action in its entirety.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FIFTEEN (15) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/28/05 Page 4 of 4