Cato v. Darst, et al.

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/18/14 RECOMMENDING that plaintiffs motion to amend 15 be denied. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES CATO,

12
13
14

No. 2: 14-cv-0959 TLN KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M. DARST, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 10, 2014, the undersigned ordered service of plaintiff’s original

20

complaint on defendants Darst and Romero. (ECF No. 11.) On August 18, 2014, defendants

21

Darst and Romero filed an answer to the original complaint. (ECF No. 16.)

22

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s July 28, 2014 motion to amend and proposed

23

amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that

24

plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied.

25

Plaintiff’s Claims

26

Named as defendants in the proposed amended complaint are defendants Darst and

27

Romero, W. Hanks, M. Delagarza-Dillard, C. Snyder, T. Campbell, W. Bennett, Officer Holley,

28

Officer Rainey, D. Shiplet and N. Albonico. All defendants are located at High Desert State
1

1
2
3

Prison (“HDSP”), where the alleged deprivations occurred.
The amended complaint contains four claims for relief. The undersigned describes these
four claims herein.

4

Claim Three

5

Claim three contains plaintiff’s claims against defendants Darst and Romero. These

6
7

claims are identical to the claims made against these defendants in the original complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 6, 2013, plaintiff was in his cell waiting for his evening

8

meal. (ECF No. 15-1 at 11.) Defendant Darst brought the meal cart to plaintiff’s cell. (Id.)

9

Defendant Darst threw the tray containing plaintiff’s food at plaintiff. (Id. at 12.) The hot food

10

struck plaintiff in the arms, chest and face, causing plaintiff to suffer pain. (Id.) Plaintiff did not

11

receive his evening meal on March 6, 2013. (Id.)

12

On March 7, 2013, defendant Romero brought the meal cart to plaintiff’s cell. (Id.)

13

Defendant Romero threw the tray containing plaintiff’s food at plaintiff. (Id.) The hot food

14

struck plaintiff in the arms, chest and face, causing plaintiff to suffer pain. (Id. at 12-13.)

15

Claim One

16

In claim one, plaintiff alleges that on December 11, 2012, plaintiff told defendant Holley

17

that he was having trouble with his cellmate. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff, who is African American, asked

18

defendant Holley for a cell move and identified an inmate he felt with whom he would be

19

compatible. (Id.) The proposed new cellmate was African American. (Id. at 6.) In response,

20

defendant Holley told plaintiff, “I don’t cell blacks with blacks.” (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff alleges

21

that defendant Holley’s refusal to house him with another black inmate constituted racial

22

discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 5.)

23

Claim Two

24

In claim two, plaintiff alleges that on March 5, 2013, defendant Hanks interviewed

25

plaintiff in his office regarding a group appeal plaintiff filed alleging racial discrimination. (Id. at

26

8.) A copy of this group appeal is attached as an exhibit to the amended complaint. The group

27

appeal concerned the alleged HDSP policy of not permitting compatible inmates of the same race

28

to be celled together. (Id. at 22-31.) Defendant Delagarza-Dillard was present in defendant
2

1

Hanks’s office during the interview. (Id.)

2

Before he could sit down, defendant Hanks threw plaintiff’s appeal across his desk and

3

said, “What the fuck is this? Do you know where you’re at? This is High Desert. We run this

4

shit.” (Id.) Without saying a word, plaintiff left the office. (Id.) As he walked away, he heard an

5

officer say, “Don’t worry, we’ll get him.” (Id.) Plaintiff turned around and saw defendant Hanks

6

talking to defendant Delagarza-Dillard at the entrance of the office. (Id. at 8-9.)

7

About 30-40 minutes later, plaintiff was in the dayroom with his radio, which he had had

8

for years. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff put his radio on a table. (Id.) Defendants Delagarza-Dillard and

9

Campbell walked up to the table. (Id.) Defendant Delagarza-Dillard picked up the radio, said it

10
11

was altered, and walked away with it. (Id.)
Plaintiff later told defendant Delagarza-Dillard that he had had the radio for years. (Id.)

12

Plaintiff went to his cell and retrieved all of his property receipts. (Id.) He brought the receipts to

13

the officer’s unit and gave them to defendant Delagarza-Dillard. (Id.) When plaintiff sat down in

14

a chair, he noticed that more officers had arrived and had formed a half circle around him. (Id.)

15

Fearing for his safety, plaintiff started to walk away. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff heard defendant

16

Delagarza-Dillard say, “get him.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was then tackled to the ground. (Id.)

17

Plaintiff did not resist. (Id.) Plaintiff was choked, kneed in the back and ribs repeatedly, and

18

struck repeatedly with a baton in the buttocks area and lower leg area. (Id.) The officers

19

involved in the assault were later identified as defendants Delagarza-Dillard, Campbell, Snyder,

20

Bennett and Rainey. (Id.)

21

Claim Four

22

Plaintiff alleges that on July 25, 2013, a rules violation report was ordered reheard

23

because plaintiff’s requested witnesses were not questioned. (Id. at 14.) Defendant Shiplet was

24

plaintiff’s assigned investigative employee for the rehearing. (Id.) Because plaintiff did not

25

know the names of his witnesses, he asked defendant Shiplet to interview inmates housed in four

26

particular cells. (Id.) Defendant Shiplet failed to interview these inmates. (Id. at 14-15.)

27
28

At the September 4, 2013 disciplinary re-hearing, defendant Albonico refused plaintiff’s
request to call the inmate witnesses he had identified to defendant Shiplet. (Id. at 15.)
3

1
2

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Shiplet and Albonico violated plaintiff’s right to due
process.

3

Plaintiff does not describe the disciplinary charges that were ordered reheard. Plaintiff

4

also does not describe the testimony of his proposed inmate witnesses and how it related to the

5

pending charges.

6

Analysis

7

Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action.

8

Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v.

9

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants

10

so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions

11

and occurrences, and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2);

12

Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of

13

North America, 623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the defendants are properly joined

14

under Rule 20(a) will the court review the other claims to determine if they may be joined under

15

Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party.

16

Plaintiff’s proposed new claims, i.e., claims 1, 2 and 4, are unrelated the original claims

17

brought against defendants Darst and Romero. Plaintiff originally alleged that defendants Darst

18

and Romero violated the Eighth Amendment by throwing hot food on him. Plaintiff’s claims

19

alleging racially discriminatory housing, i.e., claims 1 and 2, are unrelated to the claims against

20

defendants Darst and Romero and involve different defendants. Claim 4, alleging due process

21

violations during a prison disciplinary proceeding, also involves different defendants and is

22

unrelated to the original claims against defendants Darst and Romero. For these reasons,

23

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend should be denied.

24
25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF
No. 15) be denied.

26

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

27

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

28

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
4

1

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

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

3

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

4

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

Dated: September 18, 2014

6
7

Cat959.ame

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5