Coleman v. Foulk, et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/1/18 granting in part and denying in part 54 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Defendants Swartz and Harrod are dismissed. Plaintiff's third amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against defendants Hale and Nelson as reflected in this order. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1753 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

FRED FOULK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17
18

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On October 25, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations, objecting to the recommended dismissal of

24

defendants Hale and Nelson.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,

25
26

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, for the reasons

27

explained below the court declines to adopt the recommendation to dismiss defendants Hale and

28

/////
1

1

Nelson. Plaintiff has not objected to the recommended dismissal of defendants Swartz and

2

Harrod; that recommendation will be adopted.

3

In an order filed June 2, 2015, this court declined to adopt a prior recommendation

4

to dismiss defendants Hale and Nelson following screening of plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

5

See ECF No. 25 at 3. Specifically, the court found well-taken plaintiff’s objection that the

6

magistrate judge had “misconstrued the nature of his claims against these two defendants.” Id.

7

10

Plaintiff has adequately alleged that defendants Hale and Nelson
obstructed his efforts to obtain relief from the alleged ongoing
interference with his right to access the courts by improperly
screening out his grievances, refusing to file the grievances, and
delivering them to staff who would then allegedly retaliate against
plaintiff based on the unfiled grievances. Plaintiff has adequately
stated a claim for relief against defendants Hale and Nelson.

11

Id. This matter is now before the court on plaintiff’s third amended complaint. See ECF No. 53.

12

The third amended complaint contains several allegations against defendants Hale and Nelson

13

that continue to support the claim against them found by the court in its June 2, 2015 order. See

14

ECF No. 53 at, e.g., 3-6, 13, 15. The court finds the third amended complaint states a cognizable

15

claim for relief against defendants Hale and Nelson and declines to adopt the recommendation

16

that they be dismissed. The court makes no findings now on the applicability of any ratification

17

theory of liability to the claim against defendants Hale and Nelson contained in the third amended

18

complaint. Cf. ECF No. 59 at 1 (in objections, pointing out ratification theory plaintiff says

19

complaint embodies).

8
9

20

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 25, 2017, are adopted in part

22

and rejected in part;

23

2. Defendants Swartz and Harrod are dismissed;

24

3. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against

25
26

defendants Hale and Nelson as reflected in this order; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

27

proceedings consistent with this order.

28

DATED: August 1, 2018.
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE