Murillo v. Holland et al

Filing 141

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/29/23 ADOPTING 113 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING 97 Motion for Summary Judgment as to defendant Ybarra, ADOPTING 138 Findings and Recommendations in full, and DENYING 129 Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice to its renewal as a motion for summary judgment. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.(Licea Chavez, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOAQUIN MURILLO,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-00266 KJM DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

K. HOLLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On March 8, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations regarding

21

defendants’ July 20, 2018, motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 113. The magistrate judge

22

recently vacated part of those findings and recommendations but did not vacate the portion

23

recommending summary judgment be granted as to defendant Ybarra. ECF No. 138. The

24

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that

25

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. None

26

of the parties filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

27
28

On July 28, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations regarding the
December 27, 2021, motion to dismiss of defendants Holland and Gutierrez. The findings and
1

1

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any

2

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.

3

Defendants Holland and Gutierrez filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Obj.,

4

ECF No. 140.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

6

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds each

7

set of findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

8

Regarding the findings and recommendations on their motion to dismiss, defendants argue

9

that even though the allegations in this action are not identical to the allegations underlying the

10

Ninth Circuit decision in Rico v. Ducart, they are sufficiently similar such that the court should

11

find qualified immunity applies here. 980 F.3d 1292, 1299 (9th Cir. 2020) (Rico I); see generally

12

Obj. Specifically, they argue plaintiff’s claims only allege the Guard One policy as a whole is

13

unconstitutional and plaintiff does not challenge the specific application of the policy at his

14

correctional facility, California Correctional Institution (CCI). Obj. at 8.

15

Although plaintiff’s complaint also discusses the Guard One policy in general terms, the

16

magistrate judge correctly construed plaintiff’s claims as addressing the implementation of Guard

17

One at CCI. See, e.g., First Am. Compl. at 6, ECF No. 52 (“some officers would go out of [their]

18

way to bang extra hard on the persons cell door.”); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th

19

Cir.2011) (“We construe pro se complaints liberally and may only dismiss a pro se complaint for

20

failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

21

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”).

22

In Rico I, the Ninth Circuit held qualified immunity applied to officers implementing

23

Guard One only after examining the “particular facts” including “the noise levels of the facility

24

and the construction of the facility itself.” See 980 F.3d at 1299. The magistrate judge

25

appropriately found it must conduct a fact specific inquiry related to CCI’s physical structure and

26

unique noise levels before it makes any decision on qualified immunity.

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 8, 2019 (ECF No. 113), as modified by

3

the magistrate judge’s July 28, 2023 order, are adopted in full.

4
5

2. The July 20, 2018 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 97) is granted as to
defendant Ybarra.

6
7
8
9
10

3. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2023 (ECF No. 138) are adopted in
full.
4. The motion to dismiss of defendants Holland and Gutierrez (ECF No. 129) is denied
without prejudice to its renewal as a motion for summary judgment.
5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

11

proceedings.

12

DATED: September 29, 2023.

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