Williams v. Price et al
Filing
35
ORDER ADOPTING In Part and Declining to Adopt In Part Findings and Recommendations Dismissing Certain Claims in the Second Amended Complaint, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/8/18. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COREY WILLIAMS,
11
Case No. 1:18-cv-00102-LJO-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND
DECLINING TO ADOPT IN PART
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
13
14
BRANDON PRICE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
(ECF No. 32)
16
17
Plaintiff Corey Williams, a civil detainee, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§1983”). Plaintiff is a patient at Coalinga State
19 Hospital (“CSH”) awaiting a civil commitment hearing pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent
20 Predator Act (“SVPA”), California Welfare & Institutions Code § 6600 et. seq.1 The matter was
21 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
22 302.
23
On September 28, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”)
24 recommending dismissing certain claims in the second amended complaint (“SAC”) for failure to
25 state a claim. ECF Nos. 32. The F&Rs were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any
26
1
A sexually violent predator (“SVP”) is an individual previously “convicted of a sexually violent
27 offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person
a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually
28 violent criminal behavior.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code. § 6600(a)(1).
1
1 objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. Id. Plaintiff has not filed any
2 objections to date. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has
3 conducted a de novo review of this case. The Court finds that the F&Rs are supported by the record
4 and proper analysis with one exception discussed below.
5
This Court previously issued an order adopting in part and declining to adopt in part F&Rs
6 issued with respect to the first amended complaint. ECF No. 27. In that order, this Court found that
7 there was some confusion concerning the appropriate standard for procedural due process claims in
8 contrast to substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 5-15. The Court
9 found that the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th
10 Cir. 2011), provided the appropriate framework for evaluation of procedural due process claims in
11 the institutional context. ECF No. 27 at 13-15. In Greene, the Ninth Circuit found that where “prison
12 officials enacted a system-wide ban [of typewriters] with no exceptions[,]” procedural due process
13 did not require an individual predeprivation hearing where inmate “was notified of the change in the
14 regulation and given an adequate opportunity to comply with it.” 648 F.3d at 1019. Applying Greene,
15 this Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege he was not given an adequate opportunity to comply
16 with the new regulation (or the implementation memorandum issued by Defendant Price), but
17 granted Plaintiff leave to amend his procedural due process claim to allege such facts. ECF No. 27
18 at 14-15.
19
After the filing of the SAC, the F&Rs found that Plaintiff stated a procedural due process and
20 concluded that “Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Price for implementing a
21 policy that is more restrictive than section 4350.” ECF No. 32 at 13. However, this “more restrictive”
22 discussion is not relevant to a procedural due process claim pursuant to the standard set forth in
23 Greene.
24
Plaintiff’s SAC did not add additional facts to support a procedural due process claim under
25 Greene. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the F&Rs finding that the SAC has stated a
26 procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Plaintiff had the
27 opportunity to amend his complaint to address the shortcomings of his procedural due process claim
28 and failed to do so, the Court dismisses the procedural due process claim without leave to amend.
2
I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de
2
3 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the F&Rs to be
4 supported by the record and by proper analysis with the one exception outlined above. See ECF No.
5 27.
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations, filed September 28, 2018, dismissing certain
7
claims, are ADOPTED IN PART (ECF No. 32);
8
9
2. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Ahlin and Price in their
10
official capacity for Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process condition of
11
confinement claim relating to implementation of the amendments to § 4350;
12
3. The Court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations conclusion that
13
Plaintiff has stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim. Plaintiff
14
had the opportunity to amend this claim and did not add allegations to provide
15
sufficient facts that such a claim has been stated. The procedural due process claim is
16
therefore dismissed without leave to amend.
17
4. The individual capacity claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim;
18
5. All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim;
19
6. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of process.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated:
November 8, 2018
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?