Medina v. Morris et al

Filing 116

ORDER: Overruling 115 Objections to Report and Recommendation; Adopting 113 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; and Granting 105 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Based on the information stated herein, it is hereby Ordered t hat: Plaintiff's objections to the report are Overruled; The findings and conclusions presented in the report and recommendation are Adopted. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint is Granted in its entirety, and Plaintiff 's claims against Defendants Corona and Guzman are Dismissed With Prejudice; and Plaintiff's claims that his due process rights were violated in the disciplinary proceeding involving the injuries to inmate Dale are Dismissed With Prejudice. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 3/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

RAY MEDINA,
Plaintiff,

v.
B. MORRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

14
15

Civil No. 09cv0169 JAH(KSC)
ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [DOC.
# 115]; ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
[DOC. # 113]; AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS [DOC. # 105]

INTRODUCTION

16

Currently pending before this Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

17
18

second amended complaint [doc. # 105].

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.3 and

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Honorable Karen S. Carpenter, United States Magistrate

20

Judge, issued a report and recommendation (“report”) recommending defendants’ motion

21

be granted. Plaintiff filed objections to the report. After a careful consideration of the

22

pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted by the parties, the report issued by the

23

magistrate judge, the entire record in this case, and for the reasons set forth below, this

24

Court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report, and

25

GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss.

26

//

27

//

28

//

09cv0169

BACKGROUND

1
2

Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed the instant complaint pursuant to

3

42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 28, 2009, alleging that defendants violated his First, Eighth

4

and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they retaliated against him for filing certain

5

grievances. The retaliation allegations in plaintiff’s complaint stem from various incidents,

6

including an attack by another inmate, that occurred after plaintiff filed a group grievance

7

concerning the denial of permission to hold religious ceremonies, and various grievances

8

against correctional officer defendants Brown and Hernandez for allegedly fabricating

9

masturbation charges against plaintiff.

10

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on November 3, 2011, pursuant to this

11

Court’s order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff

12

filed his second amended complaint (“SAC”), the operative pleading here, on June 8,

13

2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC on July 13, 2012. The motion was

14

subsequently fully briefed by the parties. The magistrate judge issued the report on

15

February 21, 2013. Plaintiff filed his objections to the report on March 14, 2013.
DISCUSSION

16
17

1.

Legal Standard

18

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

19

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court

20

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection is

21

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

22

recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id.

23

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically

24

setting forth which of the magistrate judge’s findings the party contests. See

25

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). It is well-settled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

26

Procedure, that a district court may adopt those parts of a magistrate judge’s report to

27

which no specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas

28

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).
2

The party objecting to the

09cv0169

1

2.

Analysis

2

Defendants move to dismiss all claims against defendants Corona and Guzman and

3

certain due process claims. The magistrate judge found the claims against defendants

4

Corona and Guzman should be dismissed with prejudice based on plaintiff’s confirmed

5

abandonment of any claims against them. The magistrate judge further found plaintiff’s

6

Section 1983 due process claims against defendants which allege plaintiff was maliciously

7

and unfairly prosecuted for injuring inmate Dale is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

8

477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), because judgment in the

9

plaintiff’s favor on these claims “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction

10

or sentence” at the prison disciplinary hearing during which plaintiff lost good time

11

credits. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Edward, 520 U.S. at 647-48 (extending the Heck bar to

12

adverse findings in a prison disciplinary proceeding that affects a prisoner’s term of

13

confinement such as good time credits). In addition, the magistrate judge found plaintiff’s

14

Section 1983 procedural due process claim fails because plaintiff fails to allege he was

15

denied any of the minimum requirements of due process required under Wolff v.

16

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-67 (1974).

17

demonstrating he was denied one of more of the procedural safeguards, the magistrate

18

judge found nothing in the record indicating plaintiff has a viable Section 1983 due

19

process claim and that these claims also are barred by Heck. Lastly, the magistrate judge

20

found that, because plaintiff has already been given more than one opportunity to amend

21

his complaint based on these deficiencies, further leave to amend would be futile.1

Even if plaintiff could allege facts

22

Plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions

23

concerning the claims against defendants Corona and Guzman. Thus, the Court assumes

24

the correctness of the magistrate judge’s factual findings and adopts them in full. See

25

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153-55. In addition, the Court has conducted a de novo review,

26
27
28

1

The magistrate judge points out that plaintiff stated, in his opposition to defendants’ motion, that
he has abandoned his claims against these defendants and thus concedes he cannot state a claim against
them, rendering amendment futile. See Doc. # 113 at 10.

3

09cv0169

1

independently reviewing the report and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and

2

finds that the report provides a cogent analysis of this issue. Specifically, this Court agrees

3

with the magistrate judge that plaintiff, in his opposition, confirmed he has abandoned his

4

claims against defendants Corona and Guzman. Thus, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate

5

judge’s findings and conclusions regarding the claims against defendants Corona and

6

Guzman and DISMISSES the claims against them with prejudice.

7

Plaintiff does object to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions concerning

8

his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim contained in the Fourth Cause of Action

9

against defendant Marrero. Specifically, plaintiff contends this claim relates only to the

10

rules violation report based on a masturbation charge that was later dismissed as false, and

11

does not concern the rules violation report based on plaintiff’s conviction for injuring

12

inmate Dale as discussed by the magistrate judge. See Doc. # 115 at 2-3; Doc. # 113 at 8.

13

Plaintiff explains that his due process claim against defendant Marrero stems from his

14

being placed in administrative segregation on April 6, 2007, and then having been denied

15

due process during the “lock-up process order” dated April 9, 2007. Doc. # 115 at 3.

16

This Court’s de novo review of the record reveals the magistrate judge’s assessment

17

of plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action is correct. The SAC clearly states plaintiff was

18

removed from the general population and placed in administrative segregation on April 6,

19

2008, the same time period during which plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation

20

due to injuring inmate Dale, See SAC ¶ 86. Although there are factual allegations

21

concerning the April 2007 placement in administrative segregation due to the false

22

masturbation charge, plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action does not contain such allegations.

23

See SAC ¶¶ 23-37; compare SAC ¶¶ 85-90. Therefore, this Court OVERRULES plaintiff’s

24

specific objection to the magistrate judge’s report and ADOPTS the findings and

25

conclusions concerning plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on the

26

due process received in disciplinary proceedings involving injuries to inmate Dale

27

contained in his Fourth Cause of Action and DISMISSES the claim as barred by Heck.

28

//
4

09cv0169

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

1
2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s objections to the report are OVERRULED;

4

2.

The findings and conclusions presented in the report [doc. # 113] are
ADOPTED in toto;

5
6

3.

GRANTED in its entirety;

7
8

4.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Corona and Guzman are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE; and

9
10

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint [doc. # 105] is

5.

Plaintiff’s claims that his due process rights were violated in the disciplinary

11

proceeding involving the injuries to inmate Dale are DISMISSED WITH

12

PREJUDICE.

13
14

DATED:

March 19, 2013

15

JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

09cv0169