Wilson v. Woodford et al

Filing 88

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/16/17 recommending that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID W. WILSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:05-cv-0876 KJM DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 23, 2016, the undersigned ordered the parties to

19

inform the court whether this action should be dismissed based on the settlement of Hecker v.

20

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. CIV S-05-2441 KJM DAD P (E.D.

21

Cal.) and the continuing remedial phase of Coleman v. Brown, No. CIV S-90-0520 KJM DB P (E.D.

22

Cal.). Both parties filed responses. After reviewing the pleadings and filings in this action and

23

considering the parties’ responses to the September 23 order, the undersigned will recommend

24

dismissal of this action.

25
26

BACKGROUND
The operative complaint is the second amended complaint filed here on September 19,

27

2005. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from mental illness and has been classified

28

as an Enhanced Outpatient (“EOP”) inmate. Generally stated, he claims that EOP inmates do not
1

1

receive the same access to programs as inmates in the general population. Upon screening, the

2

court dismissed plaintiff’s claims raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and many of plaintiff’s claims

3

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). Plaintiff’s

4

surviving claims arise under the ADA and the RA. The court specifically found that the

5

following claims in the Second Amended Complaint are cognizable: (1) EOP inmates are not

6

permitted to attend school full time; (2) EOP inmates are not permitted to attend GED classes or

7

receive vocational training; (3) EOP inmates do not receive the same yard time; (4) EOP inmates

8

receive less access to the law library; (5) EOP inmates are not permitted to attend church services;

9

(6) EOP inmates are denied group therapy; (7) EOP inmates are not permitted to be members of

10

or are denied equal access to the Men’s Advisory Committee. (See ECF Nos. 24, 25, 41.)

11

Thereafter, plaintiff made one attempt to amend his second amended complaint to add

12

parties regarding his claims of discrimination against EOP inmates. (ECF No. 27.) That request

13

was denied. (ECF No. 34.) Thus, this case proceeded on the seven claims identified in the

14

screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (purpose of screening is to “identify cognizable

15

claims” and dismiss any portion of the complaint that fails to state a claim).

16

By order filed May 2, 2006 (ECF No. 45), this action was related to a class action pending

17

in this court, Coleman v. Brown, No. CIV S-90-0520 KJM DB P, and a proposed class action

18

which was also at that time pending in this court, Hecker v. California Department of Corrections

19

and Rehabilitation, No. CIV S-05-2441 KJM DAD P. Subsequently, by order filed March 27,

20

2007 (ECF No. 69), this action was stayed pending referral of Hecker to the Special Master in

21

Coleman for a report and recommendation as to whether the claims raised in Hecker could be

22

resolved within the remedial phase of Coleman. After receipt of the Special Master’s report, the

23

parties in Hecker engaged in settlement discussions facilitated by the Special Master.

24

On March 2, 2015, the court approved a final settlement of Hecker, No. CIV S-05-2441

25

KJM DAD P (ECF No. 148). That settlement resolved all but two sets of issues. Those issues,

26

listed at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the settlement agreement, were made part of the Coleman

27

remedial process. (See Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 148-1) at 7-10.)

28

////
2

1

On September 23, 2016, the undersigned ordered the parties to inform the court whether

2

this action should be dismissed based on the settlement of Hecker and the continuing remedial

3

phase of Coleman. (ECF No. 84.) Defendant responded briefly that because plaintiff is a class

4

member in both Coleman and Hecker, his claims have either been resolved through the Hecker

5

settlement or they can be addressed through the Coleman remedial process. (ECF No. 85.)

6

Plaintiff’s filing is a 24-page response to the court’s order and 376 pages of attachments. The

7

undersigned has reviewed the response and attempted to discern why plaintiff feels this action

8

should not be dismissed.

9

Primarily, plaintiff appears to restate many of his complaints about the treatment of EOP

10

inmates, describes new problems facing EOP inmates and other suits he has filed, and raises some

11

new, personal issues, including allegations that he is being denied library access. Plaintiff seems

12

to argue that this action should not be dismissed because it falls outside the purview of the Hecker

13

settlement or the Coleman remedial phase. Those arguments are: (1) plaintiff’s case involves

14

discrimination in access to Fire Camps; (2) plaintiff filed his case before the Hecker settlement;

15

(3) the Coleman remedial phase deals with heat conditions at CDCR prisons while plaintiff’s case

16

deals with discrimination in the access to programs and other services based on disability; (4)

17

plaintiff claims of retaliation; (5) there remain “systemic deficiencies” despite the work of the

18

Coleman attorneys; (6) the Coleman attorneys are over-loaded, which makes them ineffective for

19

the California Medical Facility (“CMF”); and (7) the Coleman remedial process is ignored by

20

CMF staff.

21
22

ANALYSIS
The court determined previously that plaintiff’s claims in this case were substantially

23

similar to the claims raised in Hecker. (ECF Nos. 65, 69.) As described above, in his claims that

24

survived screening, plaintiff alleges that EOP inmates are denied equal access to classes, yard

25

time, the law library, church services, group therapy, and the Men’s Advisory Committee in

26

violation of the ADA and RA. The operative complaint in Hecker alleged violations of the ADA

27

and RA based on limitations on EOP inmates’ access to “a broad range of prison programs,

28

services, and activities.” Hecker, No. CIV S-05-2441 KJM DAD P (Sec. Am. Compl. (ECF No.
3

1

35) ¶ 72, ¶¶199-210.) The Hecker suit thus covered the programs, service, and activities about

2

which plaintiff complained in his surviving claims. Plaintiff has not shown otherwise. As an

3

EOP inmate, plaintiff is a member of the Hecker class. See Hecker, No. CIV S-05-2441 KJM

4

DAD P (ECF No. 148-1, ¶171).

5

The Hecker settlement agreement dismissed with prejudice all claims for declaratory and

6

injunctive relief except those “regarding assignment of MHSDS inmates to fire/conservation

7

camps.” Id., ¶25. While plaintiff states that he raises a fire camp claim, such a claim is not

8

included in the list of plaintiff’s claims that survived screening set out above. Further, to the

9

extent plaintiff contends he has any remaining individual claims, such as retaliation claims, those

10

claims were also not included in the list of surviving claims described by the court when it

11

screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Plaintiff did not attempt to amend his complaint

12

further to state a conservation/fire camp claim or any individual claims.

13

Accordingly, those claims, which plaintiff contends fall outside the scope of Hecker and

14

Coleman, are not currently part of this action. See Thomas v. Wilber, No. 1:10-cv-0006-AWI-

15

SKO PC, 2014 WL 972156, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014) (court’s screening order controls the

16

identification of plaintiff’s claims going forward), findings & recos. adopted, 204 WL 1757210

17

(Apr. 29, 2014); Pipes v. United States, No. 1:07-cv-057, 2007 WL 4191775, at *3 (D. N.D. Nov.

18

21, 2007) (if plaintiff believes a screening order overlooked or omitted claims in its list of

19

cognizable claims, he may file a motion to amend or a separate action), report & reco. adopted,

20

2008 WL 504393 (Feb. 20, 2008).

21

Arguably, plaintiff has one remaining basis for relief that survives Hecker. The Hecker

22

suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief. However, plaintiff also sought money damages on

23

behalf of all EOP inmates at CMF. (See ECF No. 19 at xxv.) While a claim for damages would

24

not be covered by Hecker and Coleman, plaintiff’s request for damages cannot stand. Plaintiff,

25

1

26
27

In paragraph 17 of the Hecker settlement agreement, the class is defined as: “all present and
future CDCR inmates with psychiatric conditions that are disabilities as defined by the ADA and
the Rehabilitation Act and who are allegedly excluded and/or screened out from any prison
program, service, or activity on the basis of their assignment to or participation in the MHSDS
program, including the CCCMS and EOP.”

28
4

1

proceeding pro se, may not seek relief for anyone besides himself. See Simon v. Hartford Life,

2

Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim

3

for damages should be dismissed.
Finally, to the extent plaintiff has concerns about the prison’s participation in the Coleman

4
5

remedial process, plaintiff may contact Coleman counsel to express his concerns.

6

Because the Hecker settlement released CDCR from “all claims, past, present and future,

7

known or unknown, that arise or could arise from the facts alleged in the complaint,”2 plaintiff’s

8

claims seeking relief for the class of EOP inmates are no longer actionable. See 18A Wright et

9

al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4455, at 448 (2d ed. 2002) (The “central purpose” of a class

10

action “is to establish a judgment that will bind not only the representative parties but also all

11

nonparticipating members of the class certified by the court.”).

12
13

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be
dismissed.

14

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

16

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

17

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

18

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

19

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

20

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of

21

the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22

Dated: February 16, 2017

23
24
25

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/wils0876.fr

26
27
28

2

Hecker, No. CIV S-05-2441 KJM DAD P (ECF No. 148-1, ¶26.)
5