Lewis v. Alison et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING 57 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding 33 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/06/2014. R. Garza (Correctional Officer) and G. Parra (Correctional Officer) terminated. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

HOMER TYRONE LEWIS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
KATHLEEN ALISON, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-00856-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 33, 57)

15
Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma

16
17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

18
19

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied in part and granted in part. Specifically, the Magistrate

20

Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action against Defendant Allison1

21

for failure to state a claim be denied, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action against

22

Defendants Parra and Garza for failure to state a claim be granted with prejudice; and

23

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action against Defendant Allison on the ground of qualified

24

immunity be denied with prejudice to being raised in a 12(b)(6) motion. The Findings and

25

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections must be

26

filed within thirty days after service. On August 26, 2014, Defendants filed objections to the

27
28

1

Erroneously sued as “Kathleen Alison.”
1

1

Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff filed a reply to the objections on

2

September 10, 2014. (ECF No. 69.)

3

Defendants’ Objections

4

Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings related to Defendant Alison. First,

5

Defendants contend that, contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s findings, Plaintiff failed to state a

6

plausible claim of retaliation against Defendant Allison.

7

In their motion to dismiss papers, Defendants argued that Plaintiff admitted his placement

8

in administrative segregation by Defendant Allison was based on reports that Plaintiff threatened

9

to murder a correctional officer. Defendants asserted that this admission defeated an essential

10

element of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. The Magistrate Judge considered this argument, but

11

recommended denying the motion to dismiss as to Defendant Allison because Plaintiff included

12

allegations in his complaint suggesting that his placement in administrative segregation was

13

retaliatory rather than in furtherance of a legitimate correctional goal. The Magistrate Judge

14

supported this recommendation by reference to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants Denny and

15

Allison ordered his removal to Administrative Segregation and Defendant Denny later stated that

16

the placement would teach Plaintiff not to file lawsuits. (ECF No. 57, pp. 3-4.)

17

In their objections, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s allegations state a cause of action

18

for retaliation against Defendant Denny, but that Defendant Denny’s statements regarding the

19

reason for Plaintiff’s Administrative Segregation placement cannot be imputed to Defendant

20

Allison. Defendants also argue that there are no alleged facts to overcome the possibility that

21

Defendant Allison’s actions were motivated by a legitimate penological purpose—i.e., the need

22

to protect a correctional officer from harm—as suggested in Plaintiff’s allegations.

23

The Court has considered Defendants’ arguments, but finds that the Magistrate Judge

24

properly drew a reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party. Daniels-Hall v. National

25

Educ. Ass’n., 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). According to Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant

26

Denny suggested that Plaintiff’s removal to Administrative Segregation was in response to

27

Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit. As both Defendant Denny and Defendant Allison ordered the

28

removal to Administrative Segregation and the corresponding search of Plaintiff’s cell, the
2

1

Magistrate Judge correctly inferred that these actions were allegedly retaliatory in nature, rather

2

than in furtherance of a legitimate correctional goal, based on Defendant Denny’s statement.

3

(ECF No. 57, p. 4.)

4

Second, and finally, Defendants argue that Defendant Allison is entitled to qualified

5

immunity because she acted in further of a legitimate penological purpose and should not have

6

believed that her actions were unlawful. However, as discussed above, Plaintiff has adequately

7

alleged that Defendant Allison’s actions were motivated by a retaliatory purpose, not a legitimate

8

penological purpose. As such, the Magistrate Judge properly determined that Defendant Allison

9

was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. (ECF No. 57, pp. 6-7.)

10

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

11

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Defendants’

12

objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and

13

by proper analysis.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, issued on July 29, 2014, are adopted in full;

16

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on April 30, 2014, is DENIED IN PART and

17

GRANTED IN PART as follows:

18

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action against Defendant Allison for
failure to state a claim is DENIED;

19

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action against Defendants Parra and Garza

20

for failure to state a claim is GRANTED with prejudice; and

21

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action against Defendant Allison on the

22
23

ground of qualified immunity is DENIED with prejudice to being raised in a

24

12(b)(6) motion.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 6, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
d.

28
3