(PC) Barrett v. Ciolli et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/2022. Added Defendants Scott, Rodriguez, Cobbs, A. Leger, C. Hanson, Young and John/Jane Does 1-15. Federal Bureau of Prisons Atwater terminated. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY BARRETT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC)

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CIOLLI,
(Doc. Nos. 22, 24)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Anthony Curtis Barrett is a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,

19

403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during an

22

extended lockdown of his prison cell block. (Doc. No. 22.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that

23

prison staff improperly took plaintiff’s property in violation of the Due Process Clause; that

24

prison staff denied plaintiff basic personal hygiene supplies, medical and psychological care,

25

adequate nutrition, and access to the courts for at least one week; and that prison staff failed to

26

protect plaintiff from his cellmate after an altercation, which allowed for a second altercation in

27

which plaintiff’s eye was injured.

28

/////
1

1

On September 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and

2

recommendations recommending that this action proceed on the following claims: deprivation of

3

property without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment against A. Ciolli, Mr. Scott,

4

Mrs. Rodriguez, Mr. Cobbs, and John/Jane Does 1 through 5, the prison staff assigned to Unit 2A

5

who allegedly participated in the decision to seize plaintiff’s property on March 9, 2020;

6

unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against A.

7

Leger and John/Jane Does 6 through 10, the prison staff who allegedly participated in the

8

deprivation of personal hygiene supplies, exercise, and nutritional food during the week-long

9

lockdown of Unit 2A; and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the

10

Eighth Amendment against C. Hanson, Mr. Young, and John/Jane Does 11 through 15, the prison

11

staff who allegedly deprived plaintiff of his medication, medical care, and psychological care

12

during the week-long lockdown of Unit 2A. (Doc. No. 24.) The assigned magistrate judge

13

further recommended that plaintiff’s First Amendment access to the courts and Eighth

14

Amendment failure to protect claims be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state

15

a claim and that plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Doerer for failure to provide plaintiff with hygiene

16

be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on

17

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21)

18

days from the date of service. (Id. at 21.)

19

On October 15, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

20

(Doc. No. 32.). It is unclear whether these objections are to the pending findings and

21

recommendations issued upon the screening of plaintiff’s third amended complaint or whether

22

they relate to related findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions for

23

leave to amend be denied. (See Doc. Nos. 25, 26, and 28.) The objections explain that the Eighth

24

Amendment failure to protect claims plaintiff seeks to bring against Mr. Hurte should not be

25

dismissed because Mr. Hurte failed to protect plaintiff from his cellmate based on one prior

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

altercation and the “age difference” between the two inmates. (Doc. No. 32 at 1–2.)1 Plaintiff’s

2

objections, like the third amended complaint, fail to allege that Mr. Hurte or any other prison staff

3

intentionally disregarded a “serious threat” to plaintiff’s safety.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

5

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

6

objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are

7

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

8

Accordingly,

9

1.

10

The findings and recommendations entered on September 22, 2021 (Doc. No. 24)
are adopted in full;

11

2.

This case proceeds on:
a. plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim for deprivation of property without due

12
13

process against A. Ciolli, Mr. Scott, Mrs. Rodriguez, Mr. Cobbs, and

14

John/Jane Does 1 through 5, the prison staff assigned to Unit 2A who allegedly

15

participated in the decision to seize plaintiff’s property on March 9, 2020;
b. plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of

16
17

confinement against A. Leger and John/Jane Does 6 through 10, the prison

18

staff who allegedly participated in the deprivation of personal hygiene

19

supplies, exercise, and nutritional food during the week-long lockdown of Unit

20

2A;
c. plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious

21
22

medical needs against C. Hanson, Mr. Young, and John/Jane Does 11 through

23

15, the prison staff who allegedly deprived plaintiff of his medication, medical

24

care, and psychological care during the week-long lockdown of Unit 2A;

25

/////

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff notes that he is 58 years old, while his cellmate is 52 years old. Plaintiff does not
explain why this age difference would or should warrant plaintiff being especially protected from
his cellmate.
3

1

3.

Plaintiff’s First Amendment access to the courts and Eighth Amendment failure to

2

protect claims are dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a

3

claim;

4

4.

5
6

Plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Doerer for failure to provide plaintiff with hygiene
are dismissed without prejudice;

5.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the Federal Bureau of Prisons and

7

to add Mr. Scott, Mrs. Rodriguez, Mr. Cobbs, A. Leger, C. Hanson, Mr. Young,

8

and John/Jane Does 1 through 15 as defendants on the docket; and

9

6.

10
11
12
13

The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4