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)

Download PDF
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

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?