Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636-17/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARIN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION UNDER FED. R. CIV. 

P. 41(b)

(Doc. Nos. 61, 65, 66, 76)

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment claims of excessive use of force against defendants M. Marin, D. Uribe, W. Rasley, 

J. Contreras, A. Capano, R. Rubio, and Doe #1; and for deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs against defendants C. Navarro, V. Morales, M. Marin and S. Shiver. 

On February 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action under Rule 41(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure to prosecute and failure to comply with two 

prior court orders. (Doc. No. 61.) On April 4, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued 

findings and recommendations, finding that plaintiff had shown good cause for his previous lack 

of compliance, and recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 65.)

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 90 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 2
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

2

On August 18, 2016, defendants filed a second motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b), 

arguing that they had re-served plaintiff with the motion for summary judgment and unanswered 

interrogatories, but that plaintiff had still not responded. (Doc. No. 66.) On October 19, 2016, 

the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants’ 

second motion to dismiss should also be denied, because plaintiff had by then filed an opposition 

to the motion for summary judgment and provided responses to the interrogatories in question. 

(Doc. No. 76.) 

The findings and recommendations addressing both motions were served on the parties, 

providing fourteen-day deadlines to file written objections thereto with the court. The time for 

the filing of objections has passed, and no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The April 4, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 65) are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ first motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) (Doc. No. 61) is denied;

3. The October 19, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 76) are adopted in 

full; and

4. Defendants’ second motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) (Doc. No. 66) is denied; and

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 90 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2