Mundo v. Taylor, et al.

Filing 46

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 42 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER REFERRING MATTER Back to the Assigned Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings Consistent With This Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/6/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JONATHAN W. MUNDO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. TAYLOR et al.,
(Doc. No. 42)
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Jonathan W. Mundo is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On June 15, 2016, plaintiff filed the fifth amended complaint in this action. (Doc. No.

22

32.) On March 8, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s fifth amended

23

complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that (1) plaintiff’s claims

24

against defendant Taylor be dismissed without leave to amend; and (2) plaintiff’s claims against

25

defendants Salgado, Arias, and Raybon be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern

26

District of California. (Doc. No. 42.) The findings and recommendations were served on

27

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto be filed within thirty days. (Id.) On

28

March 23, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 45.)
1

1

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

2

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

3

including plaintiff’s objections, the court declines to adopt the March 8, 2017 findings and

4

recommendations.
Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint alleges substantially identical facts as those presented

5
6

in his fourth amended complaint. (Compare Doc. No. 32, with Doc. No. 26.) In screening

7

plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, the then-assigned magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff

8

pled facts sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Taylor, Salgado,

9

Arias, and Raybon. (Doc. No. 29 at 5–6.) Moreover, the then-assigned magistrate judge

10

concluded that plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the exhaustion requirements of

11

California’s Government Claims Act and dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claim with leave to

12

amend. (Id. at 6–7.)
Having reviewed plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint, this court agrees with the magistrate

13
14

judge’s prior conclusion of May 18, 2016, with respect to plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth

15

Amendment. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant Taylor had knowledge of plaintiff’s

16

relatively safe assignment to A-Yard at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”). Despite this

17

knowledge, defendant Taylor allegedly endorsed transfer of plaintiff to Centinela State Prison

18

(“CSP”), citing the same underlying safety concerns that resulted in plaintiff’s reassignment to A-

19

Yard. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that defendants Salgado, Arias, and Raybon were aware of and

20

nevertheless ignored information regarding the location of plaintiff’s enemies listed in offender

21

separation alerts and in his file, when they authorized his stay at CSP. These facts, if true, are

22

sufficient to give rise to a plausible inference that defendants were deliberately indifferent to

23

conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. In addition, these same facts

24

support a claim of negligence under California law. In his fifth amended complaint plaintiff has

25

alleged that he filed a claim with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims

26

Board, and that the Board rejected the substance of that claim on April 21, 2016.1

27
28

1

The fifth amended complaint does note, however, that the Board also denied plaintiff’s
application for leave to present a late claim. (See Doc. No. 32 ¶ 32.)
2

1

In short, the undersigned concludes that the allegations of plaintiff’s fifth amended

2

complaint are sufficient to support both an Eighth Amendment claims and a negligence claim

3

against all defendants.

4

For the reasons set forth above,

5

1. The court declines to adopt the March 8, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc.

6
7

No. 42);
2. Plaintiff shall proceed on his fifth amended complaint against all defendants on (a) his

8

claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment;

9

and (b) his negligence claim under state law; and

10

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

11
12
13

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 6, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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