(PC) Tillman v. State of California, et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/26/24 ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations in full and ORDERING that this action shall proceed only on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim asserted against defendants Drake and Nardy; plai ntiff's claim for battery and violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, asserted against defendant Drake; and plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted against defendant s Drake and Nardy; all other claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in a separate action or actions. Defendants State of California, CDCR, Perez, A. Stinson, M. Azhar, P. Gann, Baca, B. Louie, and S. Reynolds are DIMISSED from this action. Matter is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM TILLMAN,

12

No. 2:22-cv-01997-DAD-EFB (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 12)

16
17

Plaintiff William Tillman is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in this civil rights

18
19

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended

21
22

complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action “proceed on

23

the Eighth Amendment claims and state tort claims for battery and intentional infliction of

24

emotional distress, as set forth above, against defendants Drake and Nardy,” and that all other

25

claims and defendants be dismissed from this action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to

26

state a claim. (Doc. No. 12 at 3–4.)

27
28

1

On November 4, 2022, defendants removed this action from the Amador County Superior
Court to this federal court. (Doc. No. 1.)
1

1

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

2

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

3

4.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in

4

which to do so has now passed.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

6

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

7

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.2

8

Accordingly:

9

1.

10

The findings and recommendations issued on June 18, 2024 (Doc. No. 12) are
adopted in full;

11

2.

This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim asserted

12

against defendants Drake and Nardy; plaintiff’s claim for battery and violation of

13

the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, asserted against

14

defendant Drake; and plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional

15

distress asserted against defendants Drake and Nardy;

16

3.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed without prejudice
to refiling in a separate action or actions;

/////
2

The pending findings and recommendations are arguably unclear as to whether it is
recommended that this action also proceed on plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Bane Act,
California Civil Code § 52.1, asserted against defendant Drake. (See Doc. No. 11 at ¶¶ 95–104
(asserting a “fourth claim . . . for battery/rape, Bane Act violation”); Doc. No. 12 at 3 (“Claim 4
for battery against Drake is clearly related to the case at issue . . . . In sum, state-law Claims 4
and 6 may go forward against defendants Drake and Nardy . . . .”); id. (recommending that this
action proceed only on “the Eighth Amendment claims and state tort claims for battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress”)). Out of an abundance of caution, the court clarifies
that plaintiff’s allegations in his second amended complaint are sufficient to state a cognizable
claim against Drake for intentionally “interfer[ing] by threat, intimidation, or coercion” with a
state or federal constitutional or legal right, in violation of the Bane Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1;
see Doe v. Johnson, No. 2:24-cv-01542-DJC-AC, 2024 WL 4437817, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7,
2024) (finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a Bane Act claim against the defendant
where the plaintiff, a prisoner, had alleged that the defendant, her supervisor, had sexually abused
her); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that prisoners have an
Eighth Amendment right “to be free from sexual abuse”).
2

1

4.

2

Defendants State of California, CDCR, Perez, A. Stinson, M. Azhar, P. Gann,
Baca, B. Louie, and S. Reynolds are dismissed as defendants in this action;

3

5.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants

4

State of California, CDCR, Perez, A. Stinson, M. Azhar, P. Gann, Baca, B. Louie,

5

and S. Reynolds have been terminated from this action; and

6

6.

7

consistent with this order.

8
9
10
11

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 26, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3