Cejas v. Myers, et al.

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING 52 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/9/2015. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 ANDREW A. CEJAS, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 vs. W.K. MYERS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )_ 1:12cv00271 AWI DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS (Doc. 52) 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Andrew Cejas (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. After the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, Plaintiff filed his Third 20 Amended Complaint on December 11, 2014. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On January 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 23 this action go forward on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, and that his Fourteenth Amendment 24 claim be dismissed. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and 25 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed 26 objections on February 19, 2015, and Defendants replied to those objections on March 5, 2015. 27 Defendants filed objections on February 26, 2015, and Plaintiff replied to the objections on 28 March 13, 2015. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 1 2 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the parties’ 3 objections and replies, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by 4 the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections simply disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff 5 6 failed to support his Fourteenth Amendment claim with sufficient facts. Specifically, the Court 7 explained that although Plaintiff alleged that Defendants acted “intentionally,” and with a 8 “discriminatory purpose,” he failed to support his legal conclusions with facts plausibly showing 9 that Defendants discriminatorily prohibited Buddhists from accessing the chapel. ECF No. 52, at 10 7. 11 Indeed, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the Court is not obligated to accept as true 12 “threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” 13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). In his objections, Plaintiff argues that he has shown 14 a discriminatory intent and/or motive through circumstantial evidence. He points to 15 memorandums attached to his Third Amended Complaint, but those memorandums are facially 16 neutral, and simply set forth the prison’s procedures for accommodating a Muslim holiday and 17 Jewish Friday Shabbat services. ECF No. 51, at 45-52, 54. While circumstantial evidence may 18 be relied upon in certain circumstances, Plaintiff’s evidence does not, in any way, suggest a 19 discriminatory intent. Defendants object only to the finding of a cognizable claim against Defendants Van Leer, 20 21 Foston and Pimentel.1 These Defendants reviewed and denied two of Plaintiff’s grievances at 22 the third level of review, and the Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim against them on this 23 basis. Defendants argue, however, that “formulaic recitations” that Defendants could correct the 24 25 deficiency are insufficient to state a claim. ECF No. 54, at 1. Defendants are correct that 26 generally, ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute 27 to the violation. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). Defendants are also 28 1 Defendants Van Leer, Foston and Pimentel do not work at Pleasant Valley State Prison. 2 1 correct that in certain circumstances, a claim can be stated against an appeal reviewer who “has 2 the role, resources and responsibility to correct the violations.” ECF No. 54, at 3. Defendants 3 contend that, unlike an Eighth Amendment claim, administrative review of a First Amendment 4 claim does not cause or contribute to the underlying violation. Rather, to state a First 5 Amendment claim, Plaintiff was required to show that prison officials substantially burdened the 6 practice of his religion by preventing him from engaging in conduct which he sincerely believes 7 is consistent with his faith. 8 In this regard, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot make such a showing against 9 Defendants Van Leer, Foston and Pimentel because he cannot show that they had any knowledge 10 of the alleged violations at the time they occurred, or participated in the alleged violations at 11 Pleasant Valley State Prison. However, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants Foston, Van Leer 12 and Pimentel knew of the violations and were in a position to correct them, when considered in 13 light of the fact that Plaintiff has stated a claim for the underlying First Amendment violation, 14 are sufficient to state a claim under the liberal screening rules. See, e.g., Shabazz v. Giurbino, 15 2014 WL 4344368, *4 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (recognizing a claim of infringement upon free exercise 16 rights in violation of the First Amendment against defendants whose only role in the violation 17 was allegedly failing to remedy the violation when presented to them in an administrative 18 appeal). At this time, it is premature to determine whether Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of 19 law. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. FULL; 4 5 2. 3. 10 Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and 8 9 This action SHALL proceed on the First Amendment claim against Defendants Myers, McGee, Fisher, Trimble, Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel; 6 7 The Findings and Recommendations, dated January 27, 2015, are ADOPTED IN 4. Defendants SHALL file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?