Samuels v. Ahlin et al
Filing
87
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that all claims and defendants be Dismissed, except for plaintiff's claims against defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg Brian Pacheco, Sal Quintero, Andreas Borgeas, Nathan Maqsiq, Buddy Mendes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Audrey King, Brandon Price, Ron Withrow, Karin Hundal, Ron Howard, and Cynthia Radavasky for violation of Plaintiffs right to safe conditions under the Due Process Clause re 36 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Dougal Samuels ; referred to Judge Drozd,signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/26/2017. Objections to F&R due by 1/12/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
DOUGAL SAMUELS,
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
v.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
Case No. 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CLAIMS CONSISTENT
WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PRIOR
ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS
DECISION
(ECF NOS. 40 & 41)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
12
13
Dougal Samuels ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
14
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 14, 2010, Plaintiff
15
consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7).
16
The Court1 screened Plaintiff’s complaint and issued an order on July 26, 2012,
17
dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 12). On
18
November 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 15). The Court
19
screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order on May 3, 2013, dismissing this
20
action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16). The case was closed and
21
judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 16 & 17).
22
On May 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
23
Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 18). On August 21, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order, affirming
24
in part and reversing in part, and remanding the case to the district court for further
25
proceedings. (ECF No. 22). On September 26, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate.
26
27
1
28
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin was the assigned magistrate judge until October 13, 2015. (ECF No.
33).
1
1
(ECF No. 23).2
2
On October 9, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended
3
Complaint, for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 32). On
4
December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 36). On June 14,
5
2016, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that included “all of the
6
defendants he wishes to proceed against in this action, and the claims against them….” (ECF
7
No. 39, p. 3). On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 40).
8
The Court screened the Third Amended Complaint, and found that Plaintiff stated
9
cognizable claims against defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of
10
Supervisors,3 Arnold Schwarzenegger, Audrey King, Brandon Price, Ron Withrow, Karin
11
Hundal, Ron Howard, and Cynthia Radavasky for violation of Plaintiff’s right to safe
12
conditions under the Due Process Clause. (ECF No. 41). The Court also dismissed all other
13
claims and defendants. (Id.).
14
As described below, in light of Ninth Circuit authority, this Court is recommending that
15
the assigned district judge dismiss claims and defendants consistent with the order by the
16
magistrate judge at the screening stage.
17
I.
WILLIAMS v. KING
18
On November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit held that a magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction
19
to dismiss a prisoner’s case for failure to state a claim at the screening stage where the Plaintiff
20
had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction and defendants had not yet been served.
21
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that “28
22
U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and defendants named in the
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Ninth Circuit found that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s ADA claims, equal
protection claim, and medical care claim. (ECF No. 22.) However, the Ninth Circuit found that the dismissal of
Plaintiff’s safe conditions claim was premature, and that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to warrant ordering
Defendants to file an answer. (Id.) The Ninth Circuit also found that Plaintiff is not barred from bringing suit
against the members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in their official capacity. (Id.)
3
Brian Pacheco (representative of District 1), Sal Quintero (representative of District 3), Andreas
Borgeas (representative of District 2), Nathan Maqsiq (representative of district 5), and Buddy Mendes
(representative of District 4) were later substituted into the case in place of defendant Fresno County Board of
Supervisors. (ECF No. 84).
2
1
complaint—irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate
2
judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court would otherwise hear.” Id. at 501.
3
Here, the defendants were not served at the time the Court issued its order dismissing
4
claims and defendants, and therefore had not appeared or consented to magistrate judge
5
jurisdiction.
6
defendants based solely on Plaintiff’s consent.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss claims and
7
In light of the holding in Williams, this Court will recommend to the assigned district
8
judge that he dismiss the claims and defendants previously dismissed by this Court, for the
9
reasons provided in the Court’s screening order.
10
II.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
11
When a plaintiff seeks permission to pursue a civil case in forma papueris, courts will
12
screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In particular, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
13
provides that a court shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines that, inter alia, the action
14
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
15
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A central function of this
16
screening process is to “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources
17
upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the cost of
18
bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
19
A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
20
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are
21
not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
22
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
23
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient
24
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.
25
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting
26
this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts
27
“are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d
28
677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, a
3
1
plaintiff’s legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
2
Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal
3
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that
4
pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).
5
III.
SUMMARY OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
6
Plaintiff is an African-American male, currently civilly detained at Coalinga State
7
Hospital (CSH) in Coalinga, California, where the events at issue in the Third Amended
8
Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants Pam Ahlin (ex-Executive Director
9
of CSH), Stephen Mayberg (ex-Director of the California Department of States Hospitals),
10
Fresno County Board of Supervisors, Arnold Schwartzenegger (ex-Governor of California),
11
Audrey King (Executive Director of CSH), Brandon Price (interim Director of CSH), Robert
12
Withrow (Medical Director of CSH), Karin Hundal (Nursing Administrator), Ron Howard
13
(Plant Operations Manager), Dr. Peter Bresler (Medical Doctor at CSH), California Department
14
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Cynthia A. Radavsky (Deputy Director of Long
15
Term Care Services at CSH), Orange County Public Defenders’ Office, and Office of Patients’
16
Rights (collectively “Defendants”).
17
Plaintiff alleges that all of the defendants were aware of dangerous conditions at CSH
18
but took no protective measures for his health and safety to prevent Plaintiff’s infection by the
19
disease known as Valley Fever. Plaintiff alleges that on February 16, 2006, he was transferred
20
to CSH. There were rumors and scientific information that the area surrounding CSH was
21
extremely lethal because Valley Fever spores were known to be in the soil. Plaintiff and other
22
detainees were assured by employees that the environment was not life threatening, and
23
because the hospital was a hermetically sealed environment, the chance of contracting an
24
infection was a million to one.
25
Before Plaintiff was transferred, he asked his attorneys from the Orange County Public
26
Defenders’ Office about the risk of infection. They shrugged off the notion as a minor issue
27
about which little was known. When Plaintiff became infected a year or so later, the attorneys
28
did not take any responsibility and also failed to present evidence of his medical condition at
4
1
his jury trial to make a difference in his confinement.
2
Plaintiff met with defendant Dr. Peter Bresler at CSH when Plaintiff experienced
3
painful symptoms. Dr. Bresler diagnosed him with a severe case of the flu and failed to
4
prescribe any effective medication, allowing Valley Fever disease to spread to Plaintiff’s spinal
5
cord, requiring surgery.
6
Defendant Brandon Price, Hospital Administrator when Plaintiff contracted the disease,
7
knew or should have known that the area where CSH was built had been declared hazardous
8
and life-threatening because of Valley Fever. Defendant Price intentionally concealed the
9
medical and scientific facts, in spite of the number of patients infected at CSH and Pleasant
10
11
12
Valley State Prison (PVSP) next door.
Defendant Karin Hundal, Nursing Administrator at CSH, knew of the risk that Valley
Fever posed to patients of color, but deliberately hid all information about the disease.
13
Defendant Robert Withrow, Medical Director, breached his duty to inform patients and
14
employees of the danger of the disease, in violation of the Health and Safety Code. Plaintiff
15
asserts that if Plaintiff had known about the dangers, he might have avoided the infection.
16
Defendant Ron Howard, Plant Operations Manager, knows or knew about the lethal
17
nature of the Valley Fever disease, but he insisted that the ventilation system does not need an
18
upgrade to prevent entry of the windblown spores into the housing area. Plaintiff assumes he
19
contracted the disease through the ventilation system, which is defective and unable to provide
20
sufficient clean air circulation.
21
Defendant Cynthia A. Radavsky, Deputy Director of Long Term Care Services at CSH,
22
was responsible for making decisions about complaints by patients at CSH. Defendant
23
Radavsky brushed off the dangers of Valley Fever at CSH, in spite of scientific evidence.
24
Defendant Office of Patients’ Rights is a group of state workers who are the final level
25
of review of a patient’s complaint to the Executive Director at CSH. The employees there were
26
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause. They knew or
27
should have known about the danger of Valley Fever at CSH, but they intentionally disregarded
28
the risk to Plaintiff.
5
1
Defendant Audrey King, Executive Director at CSH, was the Hospital Administrator
2
when Plaintiff became infected. She had the opportunity to inform patients and employees
3
about methods to avoid infection, but she concealed scientific and medical information and
4
failed to implement safety measures.
5
Defendant Pam Ahlin was Executive Director of CSH at the relevant time. She was in
6
charge of the facility when Plaintiff was infected with Valley Fever.
7
personally and officially liable for negligent and reckless actions that caused his medical injury.
8
Defendant Stephen Mayberg was Director of the California Department of States
9
Hospitals at the relevant time. He was in charge of the five mental health institutions located in
10
California. During the time CSH was being constructed, he was aware of the life-threatening
11
danger of building next to PVSP but allowed individuals to be housed at CSH after its opening.
Plaintiff holds her
12
Defendant Fresno County Board of Supervisors was told of the future dangers of Valley
13
Fever before the ground was broken to build CSH, but did not relent to stop construction of the
14
hospital.
15
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of the State of California during the relevant
16
time, was aware of the dangers of building next to PVSP but gave his written approval to go
17
ahead with the construction.
18
19
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief.
IV.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
20
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
21
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .
22
23
24
25
42 U.S.C. § 1983
26
“[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a
27
method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
28
393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman
6
1
v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697
2
F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012);
3
Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006).
4
To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted
5
under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the
6
Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.
7
2006); see also Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing
8
“under color of state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the
9
meaning of § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or
10
omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which
11
complaint is made.’” Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th
12
Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)); “The requisite causal
13
connection may be established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which
14
the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.”
15
Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743).
16
causation “closely resembles the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.”
17
Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City
18
of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
This standard of
Eleventh Amendment Immunity – CDCR and Office of Patients’ Rights
19
A.
20
Plaintiff names the CDCR and the Office of Patients’ Rights as defendants.
21
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an
22
unconsenting state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.
23
1991) (internal citations omitted); see also Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 517 (2004); Idaho
24
v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267-68 (1997); Clark v. California, 123 F.3d
25
1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1997).
26
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the
27
state itself is named as a defendant. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf &
28
Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Beentjes v. Placer Cnty. Air Pollution Control Dist., 397
7
1
F.3d 775, 777 (9th Cir. 2005); Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th
2
Cir. 2003); see also Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)
3
(stating that Board of Corrections is agency entitled to immunity); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
4
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of Prisons was a state agency
5
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
6
Because the CDCR and the Office of Patients’ Rights are state agencies, they are
7
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim
8
against defendants CDCR and the Office of Patients’ Rights.
9
B.
Medical Claim – Defendant Dr. Bresler
10
A civilly committed person’s claim that his medical care violated constitutional
11
standards is governed by the “professional judgment” standard set forth in Youngberg v.
12
Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). “[T]he decision, if made by a professional, is presumptively
13
valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision is such a substantial departure from
14
accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person
15
responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Id. at 323. Under this
16
“professional judgment” standard, mere negligence or medical malpractice does not violate the
17
Constitution.
18
Youngberg “professional judgment” standard to a denial of medical care claim by a civilly
19
committed psychiatric patient and holding that more than negligence is required).
See Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 852-43 (4th Cir. 2001) (applying
20
Plaintiff’s factual allegations show, at most, negligence in Plaintiff’s medical treatment.
21
The only named defendant personally involved in Plaintiff’s medical treatment was Dr. Bresler.
22
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Bresler misdiagnosed his Valley Fever disease and then administered
23
medications ineffective against Valley Fever. These allegations fail to demonstrate that Dr.
24
Bresler was not using his professional judgment in treating Plaintiff’s illness. A misdiagnosis
25
indicates at most medical malpractice, which is not sufficient to state a claim under § 1983.
26
None of the other named defendants were personally involved in Plaintiff’s medical treatment.
27
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a medical claim under § 1983.
28
///
8
Violation of Right to Safe Conditions – Due Process Clause
1
C.
2
The Due Process Clause protects against the deprivation of liberty without due process
3
of law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). In order to invoke the protection of the
4
Due Process Clause, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty interest for which
5
the protection is sought. Id.
6
constitutes a ‘historic liberty interest’ protected substantively by the Due Process Clause.”
7
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982), quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651,
8
673 (1977).
9
purposes.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315, citing see Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978). “If it
10
is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be
11
unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily committed—who may not be punished at all—in
12
unsafe conditions.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315-16. “In determining whether a substantive
13
right protected by the Due Process Clause has been violated, it is necessary to balance ‘the
14
liberty of the individual’ and ‘the demands of an organized society.’” Id. at 320.
15
The Supreme Court “has noted that the right to personal security
“And that right is not extinguished by lawful confinement, even for penal
1.
Orange County Public Defenders’ Office
16
Plaintiff alleges that the Orange County Public Defenders’ Office is liable in this case
17
because Plaintiff’s attorneys from that office, when questioned about the risk of Valley Fever
18
before Plaintiff was transferred to CSH, shrugged off the notion of infections as if it were a
19
minor issue Plaintiff need not be concerned about. Plaintiff also alleges that after he was
20
infected with Valley Fever, his attorneys failed to take responsibility.
21
Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that any of his attorneys knew of a serious risk to
22
his health or safety and yet personally and knowingly acted to violate Plaintiff’s rights to safe
23
conditions.
24
Defenders’ Office, or any of the individual attorneys working there, for violating his rights to
25
safe conditions pursuant to the Due Process Clause under § 1983.
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Orange County Public
26
Plaintiff also alleges that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated. Plaintiff alleges
27
that the attorney representing him at his civil commitment trial failed to present any sound
28
evidence of his medical condition to the jury to make a difference in the outcome of his
9
1
confinement. Here, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to
2
the effective assistance of counsel, because the Sixth Amendment is not applicable to a civil
3
commitment proceeding. The protections provided by the Sixth Amendment are explicitly
4
confined to “criminal prosecutions.” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S Currency, 54 F.3d
5
564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995), quoting Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 607 (1993) (internal
6
quotation marks omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of the Sixth
7
Amendment.
8
2.
9
Defendants Ahlin, Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors,
Schwarzenegger, King, Price, Withrow, Hundal, Howard, and
Radavsky
10
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of
11
Supervisors, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Audrey King, Brandon Price, Ron Withrow, Karin
12
Hundal, Ron Howard, and Cynthia Radavasky knew or should have known about the risks to
13
patients contracting Valley Fever at CSH, but failed to stop construction of CSH or implement
14
measures to lessen the risk of infection by Valley Fever at CSH.
15
The Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiff’s allegations in the Original Complaint, that his
16
rights to safe conditions were violated, “liberally construed, are ‘sufficient to warrant ordering
17
[defendants] to file an answer.’” (ECF No. 22 at 3, quoting Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
18
1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012), citing see also Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982) (a
19
civil detainee’s right to safe conditions is protected by the Due Process Clause), and citing
20
Ammons v. Wash. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2011)
21
(setting forth objective test, which does not require subjective awareness of risk; thus, “in the
22
face of known threats to patient safety, state officials may not act (or fail to act) with conscious
23
indifference, but must take adequate steps in accordance with professional standards to prevent
24
harm from occurring” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Ninth Circuit also
25
advised this Court that “Samuels is not barred from bringing suit against the members of the
26
Fresno County Board of Supervisors in their official capacity.” (ECF No. 22 at 3, citing See
27
Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The
28
[E]leventh [A]mendment does not bar actions against cities and counties.”). Plaintiff brings
10
1
largely the same allegations concerning safe conditions in the Third Amended Complaint.
2
Therefore, in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, this Court now finds that liberally
3
construed, Plaintiff states cognizable claims for violation of his safe conditions rights under the
4
Due Process Clause against defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of
5
Supervisors,4 Arnold Schwarzenegger, Audrey King, Brandon Price, Ron Withrow, Karin
6
Hundal, Ron Howard, and Cynthia Radavasky.
7
V.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and
9
defendants be DISMISSED, except for Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Pam Ahlin,
10
Stephen Mayberg, Brian Pacheco, Sal Quintero, Andreas Borgeas, Nathan Maqsiq, Buddy
11
Mendes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Audrey King, Brandon Price, Ron Withrow, Karin Hundal,
12
Ron Howard, and Cynthia Radavasky for violation of Plaintiff’s right to safe conditions under
13
the Due Process Clause.
14
///
15
///
16
///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
4
27
28
Brian Pacheco (representative of District 1), Sal Quintero (representative of District 3), Andreas
Borgeas (representative of District 2), Nathan Maqsiq (representative of district 5), and Buddy Mendes
(representative of District 4) were substituted into the case in place of defendant Fresno County Board of
Supervisors. (ECF No. 84).
11
1
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
3
(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
4
written objections with the court.
5
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be
6
served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised
7
that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on
8
appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,
9
923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 26, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?