Grigsby v. Pfeiffer, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Reopen this Action and GRANT IN PART 14 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/30/2018. Amended Complaint due within twenty-eight (28) days. CASE REOPENED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JONATHAN GRIGSBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-01384-DAD-JLT

v.
C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REOPEN THIS
ACTION AND GRANT IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. No. 16)

17
18

Plaintiff Jonathan Grigsby (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19
20

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

21

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

22

This action was closed on February 7, 2018, after the undersigned adopted the then-

23

assigned1 magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss this civil rights action, without prejudice

24

to plaintiff filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 12.) On March 2, 2018,

25

plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint and for reconsideration of the

26
27
28

1

The initial findings and recommendations to dismiss this action were issued by now-retired
United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on December 11, 2017. (Doc. No. 9.) On July
16, 2018, this case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.
1

1

undersigned’s adoption of the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 14.) On July 16, 2018,

2

plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order on his pending motion. (Doc. No. 15.)

3

On July 26, 2018, the magistrate judge currently assigned to this case issued findings and

4

recommendations recommending that this action be re–opened and that plaintiff’s motion to

5

amend the complaint and his motion for reconsideration be granted in part. (Doc. No. 16.) The

6

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

7

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff timely filed

8

objections on August 13, 2018. (Doc. No. 17.)

9

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

10

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

11

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by

12

proper analysis.

13

In his objections, plaintiff provides great detail regarding alleged violations of institutional

14

policies and his administrative grievances. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 17 at 6, ¶¶ 17–18.) However, as

15

discussed by the magistrate judge’s pending findings and recommendations, the mere violation of

16

state regulations or denial of an inmate’s administrative grievances does not establish

17

constitutional violations. (Doc. No. 16 at 7–9.) Plaintiff presents no new arguments or

18

allegations that provide a legal basis on which to question the magistrate judge’s findings and

19

recommendations.

20

Nonetheless, the undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that

21

plaintiff’s motion to amend and motion for reconsideration be granted in part. To the extent that

22

plaintiff’s complaint does not challenge the duration of his sentence, he is not precluded from

23

bringing such claims in a civil rights action. (See id. at 5.) Additionally, the magistrate judge

24

recommended that plaintiff’s equal protection and due process claims should be dismissed with

25

prejudice. (Id. at 9–11.) In reviewing plaintiff’s extensive objections, the undersigned agrees that

26

plaintiff will be unable to allege additional facts that would support such claims, and thus the

27

granting of further leave to amend would be futile. However, further leave to amend will be

28

granted with respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
2

1

Accordingly:

2

1.

3

The findings and recommendations issued July 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 16) are adopted
in full;

4

2.

This action is reopened;

5

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend and motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 14) is

6
7

granted in part;
4.

8
9

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend only as to his retaliation
claim, and all other claims and defendants are dismissed with prejudice;

5.

Plaintiff shall, within twenty-eight days after the filing date of this order, file and

10

serve an amended complaint that cures the defects noted in this order, and

11

complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

12

Practice.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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