Crim v. Management & Training Corp. et al

Filing 62

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this 35 Action Proceed only against Defendants Mann and Patrick for Violations of Due Process, and all other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed; Objections, if any, Due in 30 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/5/2012. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 7/9/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,

12

1:09-cv-02041-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

13

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
MANN AND PATRICK FOR VIOLATIONS OF
DUE PROCESS, AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

vs.

14
15

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORP.,
et al.,

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS
16

Defendants.
/

17
18

John Michael Crim (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This action

20

now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on February 3, 2011. (Doc. 35.)

21

The complaint names Management & Training Corp. (“MTC”), Neil H. Adler (Warden), Michael L.

22

Benov (Warden), Tiarra Stewart, Cynthia Mann, Dale Patrick, Curtis Logan, Dennis McBride, Kwonto

23

Sy, M. Villatoro, and unnamed Mail Room staff members as defendants, and alleges official capacity

24

claims, supervisory liability claims, and claims for failure to train employees, conspiracy, denial of

25

access to courts, violation of First Amendment rights to free speech, violation of equal protection,

26

violation of due process, retaliation, verbal harassment, mail tampering, violation of Sixth Amendment

27

right to counsel, violation of BOP and TCI rules or policy, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

28

///
1

1

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

2

found that it states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 against defendant McBride for

3

retaliation and against defendants Dale Patrick and Cynthia Mann for disciplinary action related to

4

Plaintiff’s participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). On May 25, 2012,

5

Plaintiff was given leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, to notify the Court

6

that he does not wish to file a Third Amended Complaint and is instead willing to proceed either only

7

on the claim against defendant McBride or only on the claims against defendants Patrick and Mann.

8

(Doc. 59.) On June 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed written notice to the Court that he is willing to proceed only

9

on the claims against defendants Patrick and Mann found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 60.)

10

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

11

1.

12

This action proceed only against defendants Dale Patrick and Cynthia Mann for due
process violations related to Plaintiff’s participation in the IFRP;

13

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

14

3.

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims, supervisory liability claims, and claims for failure to

15

train employees, conspiracy, denial of access to courts, violation of First Amendment

16

rights free speech, violation of equal protection, verbal harassment, mail tampering,

17

violation of Sixth Amendment right to counsel, violation of BOP and TCI rules or policy,

18

and declaratory and injunctive relief be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

19

relief may be granted under section 1983;

20

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation be dismissed under Rule 18; and

21

5.

Defendants MTC, Neil H. Adler (Warden), Michael L. Benov (Warden), Tiarra Stewart,

22

Curtis Logan, Dennis McBride, Kwonto Sy, M. Villatoro, and unnamed Mail Room staff

23

members be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims

24

upon which relief may be granted against them.

25

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

26

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

27

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with

28

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
2

1

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

2

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
6i0kij

June 5, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3