Owens v. Rapoport

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 03/27/18; DENYING defendants' 31 Motion to Dismiss, as to defendant Rapoport with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim and against defendant Virga with respect to the First Amendment retaliation claim; Plaintiff's procedural due process claim against defendant Rapoport is DISMISSED; all claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; and DENYING plaintiff's 42 Motion to process the case as moot. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THEON OWENS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-00273-TLN-CKD

v.

ORDER

ELENA RAPOPORT, et al.,

15

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 pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 2, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20
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. Both parties have filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24
25

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

26

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

27

analysis, with one exception noted below.

28

///
1

1

In the findings and recommendations, Defendant’s qualified immunity claim is analyzed

2

under Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). (ECF No. 43 at 10.) In Saucier, the Supreme Court

3

stated that in resolving government officials’ qualified immunity claim, a court must first analyze

4

whether a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to show that the defendant’s violated the claimant’s

5

constitutional rights. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. In Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), the

6

Supreme Court receded from Saucier, deciding that “while the sequence set forth there is often

7

appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory,” and district courts should exercise

8

their discretion in deciding which of then two prongs to analyze first. Id. at 236.

9

This Court has reviewed Defendant’s qualified immunity claim in light of Pearson and

10

determined that the analysis of each prong in the findings and recommendations is correct and

11

supported by the record and this Court adopts the conclusion in the findings and recommendation.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 2, 2018 are adopted in full;

14

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 31, is DENIED as to defendant Rapoport with

15

respect to the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim and against defendant Virga

16

with respect to the First Amendment retaliation claim;

17

3. Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim against defendant Rapoport is DISMISSED;

18

4. All claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities are

19

DISMISSED;

20

5. Plaintiff’s motion to process the case, ECF No. 42, is DENIED as moot.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: March 27, 2018

24
25
26

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

27
28
2