Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison

Filing 43

ORDER on 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/14/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KING MWASI,

9

Plaintiff

10
11

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-695 AWI JLT

v.
CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al.,

12

ORDER ON FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

Defendants
(Doc. Nos. 29, 32, 41)

13
14
15

Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

16

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on April 24, 2014. The matter was

17

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

18

302.

19

On July 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”)

20

which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that Objections to the F&R were to be

21

filed within thirty days. Plaintiff requested and received multiple extensions of time and

22

ultimately filed objections on January 28, 2015. On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to

23

add an exhibit which had inadvertently not been attached to his objections; this motion is granted.

24

Local Rule 304(b), (d).

25

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

26

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the F&R to

27

generally be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In part, the F&R concludes that there

28

are no viable claims alleged against Sgt. Holland. The F&R found, however, that an Eighth

1

Amendment conditions of confinement claim was stated against Defendants Gomez, Cordova, and

2

Torres based on conduct that prevented Plaintiff from receiving meals. See Doc. No. 32 at 14:4-

3

16.

4

interference” also alleges that Sgt. Holland was made aware of the pattern of conduct of Gomez,

5

Cordova, and Torres through letters and 602’s, yet Sgt. Holland did nothing.

6

Amended Complaint ¶ 82. A supervisor can be liable for his own culpable acts of inter alia

7

refusing to terminate a series of acts by others that the supervisor knew or should have known

8

would cause a constitutional violation. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2010).

9

Paragraph 82 can reasonable be read as alleging that Sgt. Holland knew of Gomez, Cordova, and

10

Torres’s on-going actions with respect to Plaintiff’s meals, but did nothing about it. This indicates

11

culpable conduct by Sgt. Holland. See id.; Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006);

12

Shabazz v. Giurbino, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121037, *10-*11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014); Adler v.

13

Sullivan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6920, *16 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2011); cf. Perez v. Beard, 2015

14

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40836, *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015); Himes v. Gipson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15

125615, *11-*12 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2013). Accordingly, the Court will permit Plaintiff to

16

proceed on an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim (permitting interference with

17

Plaintiff’s meals) against Sgt. Holland.

The Paragraph in the Second Amended Complaint that includes allegations of “meal

18

In all other respects, the Court agrees with the F&R and will adopt it.

19

See Second

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

21
22

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 16, 2014, is ADOPTED
as discussed above;

2.

This action for damages shall proceed on Plaintiff's Second Amended

23

Complaint on the following claims:

24

a.

against Defendants Dr. Mahoney, Dr. Blanchard, Urbano LCSW,

25

and Doe 9 for deliberate indifference of Plaintiff's serious medical

26

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

27
28

b.

against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, and J. Gomez for
excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
2

1

c.

against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, J. Gomez, and Sgt.

2

Holland regarding the conditions of confinement (i.e. “interference

3

with meals”) in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

4

c.

5

against Dr. Nguyen in his official capacity for violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the ADA;

6

3.

All other claims and Defendants are dismissed; and

7

4.

The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for service proceedings.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3