York v. Stewart et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTING Motion to Strike, DENYING Motion for Sanctions, and REFERRING matter back to the Magistrate Judge 24 , 29 , 30 and 39 ; Defendant Stewart dismissed, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/21/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD RAY YORK,

12

Plaintiff,

13

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE,
DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,
AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17

(Doc. Nos. 24, 28, 29, 30, 39)

14

v.

No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM

M. STEWART, et al.,

15

Defendants.

18
Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19
20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

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

22

On June 15, 2017, defendant Stewart filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that

23

plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies concerning his claim against

24

defendant Stewart prior to filing suit as is required. (Doc No. 24.) Because plaintiff submitted

25

two oppositions to this motion (see Doc. Nos. 26, 28), defendant Stewart filed a motion to strike

26

plaintiff’s second opposition as an unauthorized sur-reply on August 14, 2017. (Doc. No. 29.)

27

On September 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against defendant Stewart and his

28

/////
1

1

counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), based largely on the filing of the motion to

2

strike. (Doc. No. 30.)

3

On February 20, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

4

recommendations addressing all of these motions. (Doc. No. 39.) Therein, the magistrate judge

5

recommended striking and disregarding plaintiff’s second response to defendant Stewart’s motion

6

for summary judgment. (Id. at 3–4.) The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff’s

7

motion for sanctions be denied, including plaintiff’s request for an order requiring the California

8

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide inmates with tablets and email service

9

with the court. (Id. at 4–6.) Finally, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had failed to

10

exhaust his available administrative remedies on his claim against defendant Stewart for the

11

alleged failure to decontaminate plaintiff’s cell and, therefore, recommended that defendant

12

Stewart’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (Id. at 7–15.) The parties were given

13

fourteen days to object to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff timely filed

14

objections on March 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 40.)

15

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

16

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

17

plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported

18

by the record and by proper analysis.

19

Plaintiff objects to the granting of the motion for summary judgment because he asserts

20

that he did not know defendant Stewart’s name at the time he sought to exhaust his administrative

21

remedies, and therefore was not required by the prison’s regulations to identify defendant Stewart

22

in his inmate grievance. (Doc. No. 40 at 6.) Plaintiff’s inmate grievance, however, specifically

23

addressed only the alleged use of excessive force, not the failure of any prison official to

24

decontaminate plaintiff’s cell. (Doc. No. 39 at 13.) Moreover, the only potential reference to

25

defendant Stewart in plaintiff’s inmate grievance was his statement therein that he was “never

26

allowed to speak to the lieutenant to document the condition of my cell and the damage to my

27

personal property or to ISU for being assaulted by the sergeants.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s objections also

28

indicate that his claim against defendant Stewart is not that this defendant failed to decontaminate
2

1

his cell, but rather that he failed to appropriately supervise the defendant officers who searched

2

his cell and failed to appropriately document the condition of that cell. (Id. at 9–10.) In sum, it

3

appears that plaintiff’s inmate grievance—and possibly even his complaint in this case—was

4

simply that defendant Stewart failed to adequately document what had occurred. However, no

5

such claim was found by the court to be cognizable against defendant Stewart in this action.

6

Instead, this litigation is proceeding on an alleged Eighth Amendment claim asserting defendant

7

Stewart knew that pepper spray had been used in plaintiff’s cell, that the cell was not

8

decontaminated, and that plaintiff was returned to the cell. Plaintiff may not change the nature of

9

the claims found to be cognizable in the course of objecting to the pending findings and

10

recommendations. See Arceo v. Salinas, No. 2:11-cv-2396 MCE KJN P, 2016 WL 6897226, at

11

*2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (“Plaintiff cannot, through objections, change the nature of his

12

pleading.”); Perkins v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:08-cv-00516-AWI-GSA PC, 2008 WL 5220997, at *1

13

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008) (same).

14

Meanwhile, plaintiff also objects to the recommendation that his second opposition to

15

defendant Stewart’s summary judgment motion be struck, suggesting that the magistrate judge

16

should have instead struck his first opposition because it was not filed by him and did not reflect

17

his signature. (Id. at 15–17.) In fact, the opposition considered by the magistrate judge did

18

reflect plaintiff’s signature. (Doc. No. 26 at 25.) Plaintiff has not presented any authority

19

demonstrating the magistrate judge erred in accepting his earliest filed opposition and considering

20

it in ruling on the pending motion. Plaintiff has likewise not explained how or why he would

21

have prevailed in opposing the motion for summary judgment, even if his second, unauthorized,

22

opposition were considered by the court. Therefore, the court will accept the magistrate judge’s

23

recommendation and strike plaintiff’s unauthorized second opposition to the pending motion for

24

summary judgment.

25

Finally, plaintiff objects to the magistrate’s recommendation that his motion for sanctions

26

be denied. The undersigned concludes that the objections provide no basis upon which this court

27

should decline to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in this regard.

28

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will be denied.
3

1
2

For all of these reasons:
1.

3
4

The findings and recommendations issued on February 20, 2018 (Doc. No. 39), are
adopted in full;

2.

Defendant Stewart’s motion to strike plaintiff’s August 4, 2017, second and

5

unauthorized, opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29), is

6

granted;

7

3.

8
9

stricken;
4.

10
11

Plaintiff’s second, unauthorized, opposition, filed on August 4, 2017 (Doc. No. 28), is

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 30) is denied in its
entirety;

5.

Defendant Stewart’s motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

12

his available administrative remedies with respect to his claim against defendant

13

Stewart (Doc. No. 24) is granted;

14

6.

Defendant Stewart is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s

15

failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies with respect to his claim

16

against defendant Stewart prior to filing suit as required; and

17

7.

18
19
20

This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent
with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 21, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4