Ramirez v. Fleming, et al.
Filing
41
ORDER adopting in full 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 19 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/28/15: Plaintiff's claims against defendants Fleming, Davie, McDonald and Harrison arise under the Eighth Amendment and Defendants shall file and serve an answer to the complaint within fourteen days of 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
RAUL ENRIQUE RAMIREZ,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-1937 KJM CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
B. FLEMMING, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
19
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On August 12, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court
26
finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
27
28
The court writes separately to emphasize that defendants’ motion is premised to a large
extent on their assertion that “mere threats” do not violate the federal constitution. See ECF No.
1
1
19-1 at 4-6. As the magistrate judge correctly found, plaintiff alleges that defendants Fleming,
2
Davie and McDonald all engaged in acts that would have led other inmates to believe plaintiff
3
was an informant. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 26-27. Thus, the allegations of the complaint go beyond
4
“mere threats.” It is settled that allegations that correctional officers have identified an inmate as
5
an informant and that the inmate suffers harm as a result are sufficient to state an Eighth
6
Amendment claim. See Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 1989).
7
Viewing the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court
8
finds the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to create an inference that defendant Harrison
9
also spoke in a place and manner that could have been heard by other inmates and led them to
10
believe plaintiff was an informant. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 23. For the reasons set forth by the
11
magistrate judge, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged cognizable injury as a result of defendants’
12
alleged acts.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 12, 2015 are adopted in full;
15
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is denied;
16
3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Fleming, Davie, McDonald and Harrison arise under
17
the Eighth Amendment; and
18
4. Defendants shall file and serve an answer to the complaint within fourteen days of this
19
order.
20
DATED: September 28, 2015.
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?