Corral v. Woodman
Filing
15
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/6/18 ADOPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consist with this order. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:18-CV-1769-KJM-DMC-P
v.
ORDER
WOODMAN,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the then-assigned magistrate judge as provided by
19
Eastern District of California local rules.
20
On July 20, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21
were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a
22
specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United
23
24
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
25
reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations
26
of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate]
27
court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court declines to adopt the findings and
28
/////
1
1
recommendations and refers the matter back to the currently assigned magistrate judge for further
2
proceedings consistent with this order.
3
The magistrate judge recommends that plaintiff’s civil rights action under 42
4
U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim because the claim
5
“does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Findings & Recommendations
6
(“Findings”), ECF No. 13 at 3. The magistrate judge relies on Stevenson v. Koskey, for the
7
proposition that “an isolated instance or occasional opening of legal mail outside the inmate’s
8
presence” does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Findings at 3 (citing 877 F.2d
9
1435, 1441 (9th Cir. 1989)).
10
However, Stevenson does not appear to address the constitutionality of “isolated”
11
or “occasional” instances of opening an inmate’s legal mail. 877 F.2d at 1441. Rather, the Ninth
12
Circuit in that case addressed whether the defendant, a probation officer, was “out of the chain of
13
causation for the alleged constitutional deprivation,” which may have been caused by a
14
corrections officer when the defendant handed him the plaintiff’s mail and he opened it. Id. at
15
1438. The court explained, “[i]t matters not whether plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated
16
by the corrections officer. Defendant did not participate in such violation.” Id. The court implies
17
that defendant may have been liable for a constitutional violation if her conduct had risen “above
18
negligence,” but held that “an official’s negligent act does not implicate the due process clause.”
19
Id. at 1440-41 (citations omitted).
20
21
Because the Findings hinge on a misreading of Stevenson, the matter is referred
back to the magistrate judge for review and revision in light of this order. 1
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1.
24
25
26
27
28
The findings and recommendations filed July 20, 2018, are not adopted;
and
At page 3, lines 4-5, the findings and recommendations indicate that the court in Oliver v. Pierce
County Jail, 2007 WL 1412843 (W.D. Wash, May 9, 2007), cites to a Sixth Circuit case. Oliver
relied on both Sixth Circuit and Third Circuit authority, and quotes language from the Third
Circuit case of Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445 (3d Cir. 1995). Fundamentally in this respect the
Findings are correct, and this correction of the reference to Circuit authority does not affect the
court’s conclusion in this order.
2
1
1
2
3
2.
This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings consist with this order.
DATED: November 6, 2018.
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?