Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 15 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/29/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

14

Plaintiff,

15

vs.

16

C. McCABE, et al.,
17

Defendants.

18
19
20

1:13cv01779 AWI DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Document 15)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action.1 Plaintiff filed this action on November 5, 2013.

21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On March 26, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated
certain cognizable claims. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or

23

notify it of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims.
24
25
26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Court order dated June 9, 2010, Plaintiff was deemed to be a prisoner with three strikes or more and
therefore unable to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, on December 19, 2013, the Court
determined that Plaintiff met the imminent danger exception for purposes of 1915(g).
1

1
2
3
4

On July 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 302.
On September 11, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that this action

5

go forward on certain claims, and that the remaining claims and Defendants be dismissed.
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff filed objections on October 9, 2014.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

10

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record

11

and by proper analysis.

12

Plaintiff objects only to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that his due process and access to

13

courts claims were not properly joined in this action. In support of his argument, Plaintiff cites

14

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007). He suggests that Andrews stands for the

15

proposition that all claims, no matter their relation, are permitted to go forward once a prisoner

16
17
18

qualifies for the imminent danger exception for purposes of 1915(g).
Plaintiff is correct insofar as Andrews requires that an entire complaint be filed once an
exception is found, even if all claims do not involve allegations of serious physical injury.

19

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1054. However, he misunderstands the limits of the holding, and the
20
21
22
23
24

procedural difference between meeting the imminent danger exception of 1915(g) and stating a
claim for relief.
Here, pursuant to Andrews, the Court docketed the entire complaint because some of
Plaintiff’s allegations met the imminent danger exception to 1915(g). Once the complaint was

25
26
27
28
2

1
2

filed, however, it was still subject to the screening requirement of 1915(A)(a). The two
procedural hurdles are mutually exclusive. Indeed, the Andrews court explained:

3
4
5
6

Our holding is quite narrow: We hold only that the district court should have accepted
Andrews's lawsuit without demanding an upfront $350 payment based on the allegations
appearing on the face of the complaint. We express no opinion on the proper treatment
of the complaint once it is docketed—and quite properly so, because the three-strikes rule
is a screening device that does not judge the merits of prisoners’ lawsuits.

7
8
9
10
11

Id. at 1050.
Plaintiff’s argument is therefore without merit. The determination that Plaintiff met the
imminent danger exception under 1915(g) did not prohibit the Magistrate Judge from screening
his complaint, and finding that certain claims were not properly joined under Federal Rules of

12

Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
13
14
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

full;

16
17

The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 11, 2014 are ADOPTED in

2.

This action go forward on the following claims: (a) retaliation in violation of the

18

First Amendment against Defendants Molina, Torres, Quillen, Hayward, Brooks,

19

Gill, CO J. Faldon, Riley, Rocha, McCabe, Strome, Sao, Rouch, Dougherty,

20

Nurse J. Faldon, Kaiser, Herrera, Clark and Does 1-30; (b) inhumane conditions

21

of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Molina,

22
23
24

Torres, Quillen, Hayward, CO J. Faldon, Riley, Rocha, McCabe and Does 1-10,
21-30 and 31-40; (c) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation
of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Strome, Brooks, Sao, Gill, Rouch,

25

Nurse J. Faldon, Herrera, Dougherty, Kaiser, Clark and Does 11-20; (d)
26
27
28

negligence against Defendants CO J. Faldon, Molina, Torres, Quillen, Hayward,
Riley, Rocha, McCabe, Strome, Brooks, Sao, Gill, Rouch, Nurse J. Faldon,
3

1

Herrera, Dougherty, Kaiser, Clark and Does 1-30; (e) intentional infliction of

2

emotional distress against Defendants CO J. Faldon, Molina, Torres, Quillen,

3

Hayward, Riley, Rocha, McCabe, Strome, Brooks, Sao, Gill, Rouch, Nurse J.

4

Faldon, Herrera, Dougherty, Kaiser, Clark and Does 1-30 and (f) medical

5

malpractice against Defendants Sao, Brooks, Gill, Strome, Rouch, Nurse J.
6

Faldon, Herrera, Dougherty, Kaiser, Clark and Does 11-20; and

7
8
9

3.

All other claims, and Defendants Hubbard, Speer, Marshall, Albritton, Macias,
Lopez, Gibson, Klass and Beregovskya are DISMISSED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12

Dated: October 29, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4