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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?