Alem v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/12/2021 ADOPTING 41 Findings and Recommendations. GRANTING in PART and DENYING in PART 34 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff' claim against defendants Ojo and Arnold is DISMIS SED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to defendant Curry, and this matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.(Reader, L)

Case 2:17-cv-00343-KJM-DMC Document 49 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DANIEL ALEM,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:17-CV-0343-KJM-DMC-P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

M. CURRY, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by

18

Eastern District of California local rules.

19

On May 6, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20

were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within

21

the time specified therein. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

22

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

23

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

24

explained below, the court adopts the findings relevant to the contention of defendants Ojo and

25

Arnold that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his claim against those

26

defendants and therefore dismisses those claims as required by McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d

27

1198 (9th Cir. 2002). The court declines to adopt the findings in section V.B. and C. and refers

28

the matter back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
1

Case 2:17-cv-00343-KJM-DMC Document 49 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 4
1

By this action, plaintiff claims that defendants Curry, Ojo and Arnold violated his

2

rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

3

Constitution. Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 41, at 2 (citing Compl., ECF No. 1).

4

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant Curry improperly rehoused plaintiff with an inmate

5

of the same race as plaintiff and, when plaintiff complained the new cell-mate was “an ‘active

6

prison gang member’” denied plaintiff’s request to be housed with an inmate of a different race

7

and charged plaintiff with violating prison rules by refusing the housing order. Id. at 1-2.

8

Defendant Ojo interviewed plaintiff and ultimately found plaintiff guilty of the charge of refusing

9

the order, and defendant Arnold denied plaintiff’s grievance at the second level of administrative

10

review. Id. at 2.

11

Defendants Ojo and Arnold

12

The findings and recommendations set out correctly the facts and legal principles

13

applicable to defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with

14

respect to his claim against defendants Ojo and Arnold, and correctly conclude that plaintiff failed

15

to exhaust administrative remedies as to either defendant. Given this finding, however, and the

16

threshold nature of exhaustion requirements, the proper disposition is dismissal without prejudice

17

of plaintiff’s claim as to these two defendants. See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1200; see also Lira v.

18

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1173 (9th Cir. 2005). The court therefore declines to adopt sections

19

V.B.2, V.B.3, or V.C. at 23:10-25 of the findings and recommendations and will instead dismiss

20

plaintiff’s claim against defendants Ojo and Arnold without prejudice for failure to exhaust

21

administrative remedies.

22

Defendant Curry

23

The magistrate judge recommends summary judgment for defendant Curry both on

24

the merits of plaintiff’s claim and on the grounds of qualified immunity. See ECF No. 41 at 16-

25

18, 21-24. The magistrate judge finds defendants have presented evidence that defendant

26

Curry’s housing order was “made to free up cell space and . . . in accordance with non-

27

discriminatory CDCR procedure” and that “plaintiff’s assertion that Curry’s actions were racially

28

motivated are entirely conclusory and unsupported by any other document submitted to the court
2

Case 2:17-cv-00343-KJM-DMC Document 49 Filed 08/13/21 Page 3 of 4
1

for review.” ECF No. 41 at 17–18. Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that

2

plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact that

3

Curry’s decision to rehouse plaintiff was racially motivated. ECF No. 44 at 7–10. Plaintiff’s

4

objection is well-taken.

5

The findings and recommendations correctly set out the legal standards that apply

6

to plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim, ECF No. 41 at 16; those standards are adopted in full. As

7

noted, in order to prevail on his claim plaintiff must prove that defendant Curry’s housing order

8

was based on racially motivated discriminatory intent. Id. In his opposition to the motion for

9

summary judgment, ECF No. 37 at 3, and in his objections, ECF No. 44 at 7-10, plaintiff points

10

to defendant Curry’s description of his purpose in ordering plaintiff rehoused, which defendant

11

Curry provided in the Rules Violation Report against plaintiff; defendant Curry wrote that he

12

“attempted to move [plaintiff] out of his cell for purposes of compaction with another inmate

13

within his Ethnicity (Other).” ECF No. 1 at 26. This statement in the Rules Violation Report

14

gives rise to a reasonable inference that defendant Curry’s rehousing order was racially motivated

15

and is sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact on plaintiff’s claim against defendant

16

Curry. For this reason, the court declines to adopt section V.B.1 of the findings and

17

recommendations from 17:13-18:27.

18

The magistrate judge also concludes that defendant Curry is entitled to qualified

19

immunity based on the magistrate judge’s interpretation of the state of the evidence on the merits

20

of plaintiff’s claim. The legal principles applicable to plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim set out

21

by the magistrate judge and adopted in full by this order are clearly established law for purposes

22

of a qualified immunity analysis. See ECF No. 41 at 21-24. Defendant Curry sought qualified

23

immunity on the basis of an assertion that the facts were undisputed. See ECF No. 34-1 at 18–19.

24

However, as explained, there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether defendant Curry’s

25

housing order was racially motivated. On this record, then, this disputed fact precludes summary

26

judgment for defendant Curry on the merits of plaintiff’s claim. The court therefore declines to

27

grant summary judgment for defendant Curry on the ground of qualified immunity as presented in

28

his motion for summary judgment.
3

Case 2:17-cv-00343-KJM-DMC Document 49 Filed 08/13/21 Page 4 of 4
1

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

2

1.

3

extent consistent with this order;

4

2.

5

3.

10

Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Ojo and Arnold is DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

8
9

Defendants’ motion for summary judgement (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part;

6
7

The findings and recommendations filed May 6, 2020, are adopted to the

4.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to defendant

5.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

Curry; and

11

proceedings consistent with this order.

12

DATED: August 12, 2021.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4