(PC) Hammler v. Kernan et al
Filing
40
ORDER ADOPTING 32 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/28/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Orozco, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALLEN HAMMLER,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:19-cv-00497-DAD-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 32)
17
18
Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
19
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
20
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On October 17, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
22
recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. No.
23
30) be dismissed due its failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 32.) The findings
24
and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto
25
were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 13.) On January 2, 2020, after
26
receiving three extensions of time to file his objections, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 39.)
27
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
28
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
1
1
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
2
by proper analysis.
3
In his objections, plaintiff argues that “[t]he magistrate judge misconstrue[d] the facts” in
4
issuing the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 39 at 3.) Specifically, plaintiff
5
contends that his First Amendment claim is not based on his right to appear in person at a
6
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Institutional Classification Committee
7
(“ICC”) hearing, as the magistrate judge characterized his claim, but instead is based on his
8
“absolute right to speak to the Higher up(s) in Sacramento via the 128-G [form].” (Id. at 3–4.)
9
Plaintiff claims to have “an absolute right [] via th[is] process [to] speak his concerns to the
10
Reviewer/Executives up the Chain . . . and was denied that right for no legitimate Penalogical
11
[sic] Reason as was alleged in the SAC.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff’s objections, however, do not
12
meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that his SAC fails to allege a cognizable First
13
Amendment claim.
14
First, it is not clear to the court that plaintiff’s objection has any merit, since “Form 128–
15
G’s purpose is documenting the classification hearing,” Williams v. Sullivan, No. 1:09-cv-00118-
16
OWW-SMS (PC), 2009 WL 3624997, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (citing CDCR Operations
17
Manual § 62010.9.1), and it does not appear that plaintiff himself could communicate with
18
“Higher up(s)” via that form. See id. (“The documentation must include the action taken, the date
19
of the action, the specific reasons for the action, the information upon which the decision was
20
based, the names of the participating staff, the name of the committee chairperson, and the
21
signature of the person recording the action.”) Second, as the pending findings and
22
recommendations note, the SAC alleges that plaintiff refused to attend the ICC hearing at issue
23
because he did not want to wear a “size 5X Jumpsuit.” (See Doc. Nos. 32 at 3; 30 at 7.) Plaintiff
24
admits that after the ICC hearing proceeded without him in attendance, a 128-G form was issued,
25
albeit, in his view, it included “a number of Facts [that] had been Fabricated by Defendants . . .
26
and intentionally falsified.” (Doc. No. 30 at 7–8.) However, even if the court accepts plaintiff’s
27
allegations as true, he has not once—not in his original complaint, the first amended complaint,
28
the operative SAC, or in his objections to the pending findings and recommendations—
2
1
sufficiently alleged that in purportedly falsifying the 128-G form, his right to free speech was
2
denied or that he was retaliated against by defendants. Nor has plaintiff argued that he was
3
otherwise denied his rights under the First Amendment. In fact, the SAC alleges that plaintiff had
4
an opportunity to go before the ICC—and thereby exercise his First Amendment right—but
5
refused to do so because he did not want to wear the jumpsuit provided to him by prison officials.
6
Of course, plaintiff’s decision to not comply with prison regulations is not a First Amendment
7
violation, and he has provided the court to no authority so indicating.
Plaintiff’s objections do not dispute the magistrate judge’s remaining findings that he has
8
9
failed to state cognizable claims for violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
10
Amendments and that he cannot bring suit against defendant Kernan in defendant Kernan’s
11
official capacity.
12
Accordingly,
13
1.
14
full;
15
2.
This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for
relief1; and
16
17
18
The October 17, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 32) are adopted in
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated:
January 28, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s SAC also asserts state law tort claims. Having found that plaintiff’s federal claims
fail to state cognizable claims, the court chooses not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
those claims. See Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1057 (9th Cir.
2016) (“When we are presented with multiple claims within a single action, we assess a PLRA
strike only when the ‘case as a whole’ is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the Act.”).
3
1
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?