Garcia et al v. Smith et al
Filing
72
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 64 ; denying 59 Motion to Amend Civil Complaint; and granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 50 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 3/14/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, JR.,
13
Plaintiff,
v.
14
15
16
17
BROWN, CHANCE, CLUCK,
CONTRERAS, CORTEZ, ELIAS,
MERCHANT, MOORE, MORRIS,
PEDERSEN, SAVALA, SMITH,
STEWART, STRICKLAND, SUGLICH,
VASQUEZ, WALL, HIRING AUTHORITY
JOHN/JANE DOE’S #1 TO 5.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 10-cv-01187 AJB (RBB)
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (2) DENYING
MOTION TO AMEND CIVIL
COMPLAINT, AND (3) GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Doc. Nos. 50, 59, 64]
18
Defendants.
19
20
On June 1, 2010, Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a California prisoner proceeding pro se,
21
filed a Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) U.S. District Court Judge Roger T.
22
Benitez issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissing the
23
entire Complaint for failing to state a claim. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on
24
October 5, 2010, which was also dismissed sua sponte for failing to state a claim. (Doc. Nos. 9, 15.) On
25
December 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against seventeen named
26
prison officials alleging that Defendants retaliated and conspired against him because he exercised his
27
First Amendment right to petition the government through prison grievance procedures. See generally
28
1
10-cv-1187
1
SAC, 7-10, Doc. No. 16.1 Plaintiff argues that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to
2
equal protection and procedural due process, his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
3
unusual punishment, and his First Amendment right to access the courts. See generally id at 17-21.
4
On February 3, 2011, Judge Benitez sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s due process, cruel and
5
unusual punishment, and access to courts causes of action for failing to state a claim. (Doc. No. 17.) He
6
directed service of the SAC on Defendants for Plaintiff’s remaining claims of retaliation, conspiracy,
7
and equal protection. (Order 7-8, Feb. 3, 2011, Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for relief
8
from the Court’s Order and a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
9
Circuit, challenging the February 3, 2011 Order. (Doc. Nos. 18-20, 22.) While the Ninth Circuit appeal
10
was pending, the case was transferred to this Court (Doc. No. 26), and Plaintiff filed another motion
11
contesting Judge Benitez’s February 3, 2011 Order dismissing certain claims (Doc. No. 28). The Court
12
subsequently denied both of Garcia’s motions challenging that Order. (Doc. No. 29.)2
13
14
15
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 26, 2011. (Doc. No. 50.) On June 8, 2011,
Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend the SAC. (Doc. No. 59.)
These matters were referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks for report and recommenda-
16
tion (“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Upon reviewing the SAC, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend,
17
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendants’ Reply, and Plaintiff’s Surreply,
18
Magistrate Judge Brooks issued his R&R. (Doc. No. 64.) The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion
19
to Amend be denied and that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Id.
20
A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s R&R on dispositive matters. Fed.
21
R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
22
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify,
23
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
24
636(b)(1). The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific written objection is
25
26
27
1
Because the Second Amended Complaint, Opposition, and Surreply are not consecutively
paginated, the Court cites to them using page numbers assigned by the electronic case filing system.
2
28
The Court ruled on Garcia’s motions because Plaintiff’s Ninth Circuit appeal was
jurisdictionally defective. (Order Den. Pl.’s Mot. Vacate Order 1, Doc. No. 29.) The Ninth Circuit later
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 49.)
2
10-cv-1187
1
made. United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute
2
makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
3
de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” Id.
4
On January 6, 2012, Plaintiff timely filed his objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 66.) Plaintiff
5
objects to Magistrate Judge Brooks’ recommendation that his Motion to Amend be denied. Id. He also
6
objects to the recommendation that Defendants Morris, Pederson, and Strickland’s Motion to Dismiss
7
for failure to state a claim be granted. Id. Defendants filed a timely reply to Plaintiff’s objections on
8
January 20, 2012, concurring with Magistrate Judge Brooks’ findings in the R&R. (Doc. No. 70.) The
9
Court has considered both documents before issuing this Order.
10
I.
11
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff objects to the denial of his Motion to Amend the SAC. He requests leave to amend his
12
Complaint to include Defendants Morris and Pedersen and asserts that he is being penalized for
13
grammatical errors. (Doc. No. 66.) The Court recognizes that when a plaintiff appears pro se, the Court
14
must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim-Panahi v.
15
L.A. Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the issue of leave to amend has already
16
been decided adversely to Plaintiff on two occasions. Furthermore, the “facts” Plaintiff claims he can
17
recite in support of his claims against Morris and Pederson are not facts but rather unsupported
18
conclusions. Because Plaintiff’s due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and access to courts causes
19
of action were dismissed without leave to amend, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled, and the R&R is
20
adopted on this issue.
21
II.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Brooks’ recommendation granting Defendants Morris,
22
23
Pedersen, and Strickland’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 66.)
24
A.
25
Warden Morris and Correctional Counselor II Pedersen
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Brooks’ recommendation that Defendants Morris and
26
Pederson’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted without permitting Plaintiff
27
leave to amend his SAC. (Doc. No. 66.) In his objection, Plaintiff recapitulates generalized allegations
28
that Morris and Pederson prevented him from access to the courts. Id. The fact remains, however, that
3
10-cv-1187
1
Judge Benitez previously dismissed Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim without leave to amend on
2
February 3, 2011 (Doc. No. 17), and this Court affirmed the dismissal on March 21, 2011 (Doc. No. 21).
3
Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim is the only claim alleged against Defendants Morris and Pederson.
4
Therefore, it is proper to dismiss Defendants Morris and Pederson entirely. Plaintiff’s objection is
5
overruled, and the R&R is adopted on this issue.
6
B. Sergeant Strickland
7
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Brooks’ finding that Defendant Strickland’s Motion to
8
Dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation and conspiracy claims should be granted.
9
Regarding the retaliation claim, Plaintiff’s objection relies on generalized conclusions in
10
asserting that Defendant Strickland participated in the decision to deny Plaintiff’s cell move request in
11
retaliation for the grievances that Plaintiff previously filed. (Doc. No. 66.) Beyond conclusory
12
allegations, Plaintiff fails to provide facts sufficient to suggest that Strickland took action that was
13
“clearly adverse,” as required to state a retaliation claim. See Garland v. Skribner, 2008 U.S. Dist.
14
LEXIS 78835, at *11-12 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2008) (citing examples of action that is clearly adverse to the
15
plaintiff). Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. Furthermore, denial of further leave to
16
amend is proper because Plaintiff has already had two opportunities to state a retaliation claim against
17
Defendant Strickland. See Sitanggang v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 419 F. App’x 756, 757 (9th
18
Cir. 2011).
19
Regarding the conspiracy claim, Plaintiff’s objection restates allegations that Defendant
20
Strickland “organized himself with other defendants” and thereby participated in the decision to deny
21
Plaintiff’s cell move request so as to punish Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 66.) To support his objection, Plaintiff
22
relies on the “reasons stated in [Plaintiff’s] SAC[.]” Id. However, Plaintiff still fails to allege that
23
Defendant Strickland committed an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to retaliate. See Gilbrook v.
24
City of Westminster, 177 F. 3d 839, 856 (9th Cir. 1999). Again, Plaintiff’s objection is without merit,
25
since he has failed to state a claim. Likewise, denial of further leave to amend is proper because
26
Plaintiff has already had three opportunities to state a conspiracy claim against Defendant Strickland.
27
See Sitanggang, 419 F. App’x at 757.
28
4
10-cv-1187
1
2
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections to be without merit. After
3
reviewing Magistrate Judge Brooks’ R&R in its entirety, the Court concludes that it is thorough, well
4
reasoned, and without error. Accordingly, the Court finds the R&R to be correct and ADOPTS it in
5
full. Plaintiff’s request to amend his civil complaint is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
6
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
11
DATED: March 14, 2012
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
10-cv-1187
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?