Cramblit v California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/05/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES CRAMBLIT,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-00058-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 16, 17, 29)

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff James Cramblit is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma puaperis in this

22

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), plaintiff

23

consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge on December 27, 2016. Local

24

Rule 302. To date, defendants have not consented to or declined to consent to magistrate judge

25

jurisdiction.

26

On April 19, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s second amended

27

complaint stated a cognizable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against

28

Defendants R. Fisher, Jr. and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Doc.
1

1

No. 17.) The magistrate judge dismissed all other defendants for failure to state a cognizable

2

claim for relief. (Id.) The magistrate judge indicated that jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. §

3

636(c) based on the fact that plaintiff had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction and no other

4

parties had yet appeared in this action. (Id.)

5
6

On July 11, 2017, defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. No. 21.) On July
20, 2017, the court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. No. 22.)

7

On November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 28 U.S.C. §

8

636(c)(1) requires the consent of all named plaintiffs and defendants, even those not served with

9

process, before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to dispose of a civil case. Williams v.

10

King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to

11

dismiss the above-described claims by way of the April 19, 2017 order. Therefore, on December

12

1, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this

13

action proceed against defendants R. Fisher, Jr. and the California Department of Corrections and

14

Rehabilitation on plaintiff’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and that all other

15

defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The findings and

16

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed

17

within fourteen days. No objections were filed and the time period to do so has expired.

18

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

19

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff’s case. In his second amended

20

complaint, plaintiff alleges that regardless of his status and whether EOP inmates have been

21

cleared for dining hall and kitchen positions or not, “the fact remains that no EOP inmates,

22

including ADA recipients, will be assigned to these particular jobs, canteen, laundry, or dining

23

hall, and it has been this way for the past two years or more on ‘A’ facility.” (Doc. No. 16 at 3.)

24

The undersigned agrees that plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief under the Americans

25

with Disabilities Act because his request for reasonable accommodation for a position he was

26

qualified for was denied because of his status as an EOP inmate and the decision was based on

27

medical information that was ten years old. As such, the undersigned concludes the findings and

28

recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
2

1

Accordingly,

2

1. The December 1, 2017 findings and recommendations are adopted in full;

3

2. This action shall continue to proceed against Defendant R. Fisher, Jr. and the

4

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on plaintiff’s claim under the

5

Americans with Disabilities Act; and

6

3. All other defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable

7
8
9

claim for relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 5, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3