Rios v. Paramo et al

Filing 63

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Dkt # 55 ) is adopted in part and not adopted in part. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt # 20 ) is denied. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D kt # 34 ) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt # 35 ) is granted in part and denied in part. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/1/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CARLOS RIOS,
CDCR E-52249,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

Civil No.

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

ORDER

vs.
DANIEL PARAMO; J. BEHRA;
E. BENYARD; M. CAVAZOS; ABAD;
M. ZUNIGA; RUTLEDGE; E. ALVAREZ;
K. SPENCE; A. ALLAMBY; ALAN
HERNANDEZ; W. SUGLICH; A.A.
JONES; E. CORTEZ; R. OLSON; J.
RAMIREZ,

18

Defendants.

19
20
21

HAYES, Judge:

22

The matters before the Court are: (1) the motion for a temporary restraining order

23

and preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Carlos Rios (ECF No. 20); (2) the motion for

24

partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust filed by all Defendants (ECF No. 34);

25

(3) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by all Defendants (ECF No. 35);

26

and (4) the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge David

27

H. Bartick (ECF No. 55).

28
-11

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

I. Background

2

On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff Carlos Rios commenced this action by filing a civil

3

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion for leave to proceed in forma

4

pauperis (“IFP”) in this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges that various Richard

5

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) officials have, beginning in May 2012,

6

conspired and retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a civil rights lawsuit and filing various

7

CDC 602 inmate appeals. The Complaint alleges that various RJD officials have

8

retaliated against Plaintiff by: (1) filing a “false misbehavior Rule Violation Report;” (2)

9

denying Plaintiff due process during disciplinary proceedings; (3) terminating Plaintiff’s

10

prison job assignment; (4) confiscating Plaintiff’s personal property; and (5) wrongfully

11

cancelling Plaintiff’s CDC 602 prison administrative appeals. (ECF No. 1 at 9). On

12

August 14, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP

13

and ordering the United States Marshal to effectuate service of the Complaint. (ECF No.

14

5).

15

On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed the motion for a temporary restraining order and

16

preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 20).

On October 30, 2014, Defendants filed an

17

opposition. (ECF No. 28). On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 31).

18
19

On November 24, 2014, Defendants filed the motion for partial summary judgment

20

(ECF No. 34) and the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35). On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff

21

filed an opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 41). On

22

December 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46).

23

On January 13, 2015, Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. (ECF

24

No. 51). On January 16, 2015, Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion for

25

partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 53).

26

On June 29, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick issued the

27

Report and Recommendation, recommending that the motion for a temporary restraining

28

order and preliminary injunction be denied, the motion for partial summary judgment be
-22

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

granted in part and denied in part, and the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied

2

in part. (ECF No. 55). On July 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and

3

Recommendation. (ECF No. 56). On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed objections to the

4

Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 57). On August 10, 2015, Defendants filed a

5

reply to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 58). On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply

6

to Defendants’ objections. (ECF No. 62).

7

II. Legal Standard

8

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of

9

a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the

11

report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

12

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The

13

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation

14

to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

15

2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the

16

Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de

17

novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).

18

III. Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF

19

No. 20)

20

Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ordering

21

“the Defendants, their successors in office, agents and employees and all other persons

22

acting in concern and participation with them, to halt immediately with [their] ongoing

23

conspiracy and retaliatory bias, such as harassment, threats, punishment, confiscation of

24

legal papers or personal property.” (ECF No. 20 at 10). The magistrate judge

25

recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied because Plaintiff has not shown likely

26

success on the merits and the balance of equities and public interest do not favor the

27

issuance of a preliminary injunction. The magistrate judge found that the balance of

28

equities and public interest do not favor Plaintiff because Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
-33

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

unnamed prison officials and the requested injunction “improperly infringes in prison

2

officials’ ability to discipline Plaintiff, as necessary, and to maintain the security and

3

safety of the prison.” (ECF No. 55 at 38).

4

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the motion for a

5

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied.

(Report &

6

Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 55 at 31:11-38:16). Plaintiff contends that he is

7

“likely to prevail on the merits because plaintiff[’s] overwhelming evidence clearly

8

established that at least eight of the defendants are liable for their constitutional

9

violation[s] of clearly establish[ed] constitutional rights.” (ECF No. 56 at 3-4). Plaintiff

10

contends that the equities weigh in his favor because his present and future suffering from

11

illegal punishment is “enormous,” while Defendants’ hardship would be limited to an

12

order requiring them to obey the law. Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts that an injunction would

13

not impinge on RJD’s ability to maintain order and safety.

14

The magistrate judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff has failed to establish a

15

likelihood of success on the merits. The magistrate judge correctly concluded that the

16

balance of equities and public interest do not favor granting Plaintiff the broad injunctive

17

relief that he requests.

18

preliminary injunction is denied.

19

IV. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34)

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and

20

Defendants move for summary judgment on some of Plaintiffs’ claims with respect

21

to some Defendants due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The

22

magistrate judge recommends that summary judgment be granted on the following

23

claims: (1) conspiracy and retaliation claims against Defendant Abad; (2) due process

24

claims against Defendants Behra, Cavazos, and Paramo; (3) equal protection claim

25

against all Defendants except Defendants Benyard, Cavazos, and Paramo; and (4) cruel

26

and unusual punishment claim against all Defendants.

27

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that summary judgment

28

be granted on certain claims due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. (R&R, ECF No. 55 at
-44

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

38:17-64:14). Plaintiff contends that he has “linked” Defendants Cavazos and Paramo

2

to due process violations by denying Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard. (ECF No. 56

3

at 5). Plaintiff contends that he has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against multiple

4

Defendants by alleging that their retaliatory actions in creating false reports will result

5

in Plaintiff’s parole being denied.

6

Plaintiff does not contend that the claims identified by the magistrate judge as

7

unexhausted are, in fact, exhausted. After reviewing the entire record in this case, the

8

Court concludes that the magistrate judge correctly identified Plaintiff’s unexhausted

9

claims. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied

10

in part as stated in the Report and Recommendation. Defendants’ motion for partial

11

summary judgment is granted with respect to the following claims: (1) conspiracy and

12

retaliation claims against Defendant Abad; (2) due process claims against Defendants

13

Behra, Cavazos, and Paramo; (3) equal protection claim against all Defendants except

14

Defendants Benyard, Cavazos, and Paramo; and (4) cruel and unusual punishment claim

15

against all Defendants.

16

V. Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35)

17

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s conspiracy, retaliation, due process, equal

18

protection, and cruel and unusual punishment claims for failure to state a claim.

19

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims arising from a rules violation report

20

(“RVR”) and related hearings as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Defendants move for

21

absolute immunity to the extent they are sued in their official capacity and for qualified

22

immunity to the extent they are sued in their individual capacity.

23

The magistrate judge recommends that the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ conspiracy

24

claim be denied with respect to Defendants Behra, Olson, and Ramirez, but granted with

25

respect to all other Defendants. The magistrate judge recommends that the motion to

26

dismiss Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim be granted with respect to Defendants Abad, Allamby,

27

Alvarez, Cavazos, Cortez, Hernandez, Jones, Rutledge, and Spence, but denied with

28

respect to Defendants Behra, Benyard, Olson, Paramo, Ramirez, Suglich, and Zuniga.
-55

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

The magistrate judge recommends that the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim

2

be granted. The magistrate judge recommends that the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ equal

3

protection claim be denied with respect to Defendants Benyard and Cavazos, but granted

4

with respect to all other Defendants. The magistrate judge recommends that the motion

5

to dismiss Plaintiffs’ cruel and unusual punishment claim be granted. The magistrate

6

judge recommends that the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for money damages

7

against Defendants in their official capacities be granted. The magistrate recommends

8

that the motion to dismiss be granted on the basis of qualified immunity with respect to

9

Defendants Abad, Allamby, Alvarez, Cortez, Hernandez, Jones, Rutledge, and Spence,

10

but denied on the basis of qualified immunity with respect to Defendants Behra, Benyard,

11

Cavazos, Olson, Paramo, Ramirez, Suglich, and Zuniga.

12

A. Defendants’ Objections

13

i. Heck v. Humphrey

14

The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff’s due process claim is barred by Heck

15

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) to the extent it arises from the Rules Violation Report

16

(“RVR”) issued in response to a January 18, 2013 altercation between Plaintiff and

17

another inmate. Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that only

18

Plaintiff’s due process claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey. (R&R ECF No. 55 at 92

19

n.39). Defendants contend that “[if] Plaintiff prevailed on his retaliation, conspiracy, and

20

equal protection claims as related to the rules violation report for fighting, that result

21

would imply that the rules violation report was invalidly issued, that the hearing was

22

invalidly held, that the guilty finding was invalid, that the 90-day forfeiture of credit was

23

invalid, and that the UCC’s denial of re-entry was invalid.” (ECF No. 57 at 8).

24

Plaintiff contends that Heck “is inapplicable in Plaintiff’s other claims because the

25

90 days good time credicts [sic] he lost as the result[] of his disciplinary conviction are

26

restored 100 percent under Cal. Code of Regs. Tit. 15 §§ 3327(1) and 3328(b) which

27

permit[] restoration of forfeited credits if the inmate remain[s] disciplinary free for a

28

specified period after their disciplinary conviction.” (ECF No. 62 at 8). Plaintiff asserts
-66

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

that “the 90 days loss of credits are restored 100 percent....” Id.

2

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Benyard issued a false RVR for a January

3

18, 2013 altercation between Plaintiff and another inmate. In the RVR, Defendant

4

Benyard states that Plaintiff admitted to him that he instigated the fight at Plaintiff’s

5

February 4, 2013 administrative segregation hearing. Plaintiff denies that he made this

6

admission and alleges that Defendant Benyard fabricated this evidence in retaliation for

7

Plaintiff submitting a January 13, 2013 complaint to Defendant Paramo. At the October

8

16, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff examined non-defendant Correctional Officer D. Hodges.

9

Correctional Officer D. Hodges stated that he was present at Plaintiff’s February 4, 2013

10

administrative segregation hearing but that he did not hear Plaintiff admitting that he

11

started the January 18, 2013 altercation.

12

The Complaint also alleges that Defendants Cortez and Jones conspired with

13

Defendant Benyard to falsely punish Plaintiff for fighting by changing their version of

14

the facts. Attached to the Complaint is a “Crime/Incident Report.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 66).

15

The report states, in relevant part:

22

On January 18, 2013, at approximately 1115 hours Officer A. Jones
observed inmate Mayorga ... battering Inmate Rios.... Officer A. Jones, the
Facility C Yard #1 notified Facility C Observation to put the yard down, via
institution radio. Officer Jones then respond [sic] to the incident. Officer
E. Cortez, the Housing Unit 11 floor #2 Officer responded to the yard and
saw Inmate Mayorga on top of Inmate Rios. Officer Cortez also ordered
Inmate Mayorga to stop hitting Inmate Rios and to get down on the ground.
Inmate Mayorga still refused to comply, therefore Officer Cortez utilized
force in the form of one burst of Oleoresin Capsicum spray (OC) from his
state issued MK9 to Inmate Mayorga’s face. The use of force was effective
and Inmate Mayorga got off of inmate Rios and stopped his assault of
Inmate Rios. Inmate Rios sustained a fractured left ankle (Serious Injury)
and possible fractured nose as a result of the force used by inmate Mayorga.

23

(ECF No. 1-2 at 66). The report lists Plaintiff as a “Victim” and Inmate Mayorga as a

24

“Suspect.” Id. The report further states that “Officer E. Cortez processed on a pair of

25

leather gloves with blood.” Id. “The gloves were used by Inmate Rios.” Id.

16
17
18
19
20
21

26

Also attached to the Complaint is a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”). (ECF No.

27

1-2 at 75-81). The RVR contains a statement from Defendant Benyard. Defendant

28

Benyard states he interviewed Plaintiff on February 4, 2013 regarding the January 18,
-77

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

2013 altercation in an administrative segregation hearing. Defendant Benyard states that

2

Plaintiff admitted to him that he initiated the fight.

3

Plaintiff told him that “he had a pair of leather gloves and sought out Inmate MAYORGA

4

and confronted him in a physical manner.” Id. at 75.

Defendant Benyard states that

5

The Complaint alleges that all persons involved in Plaintiff’s ensuing disciplinary

6

proceedings found Plaintiff guilty of fighting as part of a conspiracy to retaliate against

7

Plaintiff for his prior protected activities. The Complaint alleges that these Defendants

8

denied Plaintiff due process by failing to provide him with an impartial hearing and

9

refusing to allow him to present certain evidence. The Complaint alleges that these

10

disciplinary hearings resulted in the imposition of a 90-day good-time credit loss.

11

“[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

12

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

13

conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or

14

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

15

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question

16

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck, 512

17

U.S. at 486-87. The Heck rule applies to prison disciplinary actions resulting in the loss

18

of good-time credit, when there are “allegations of deceit and bias on the part of the

19

decisionmaker that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed....”

20

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643, 648 (1997).

21

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Benyard retaliated against Plaintiff by

22

issuing a false RVR, falsely claiming that Plaintiff instigated the January 18, 2013

23

altercation. If Plaintiff prevailed on this claim, it would “necessarily imply the invalidity

24

of the punishment imposed....” Id. at 648; see id. at 646-47 (noting that courts have

25

reinstated good-time credits when there is an “obvious procedural defect” in the prison

26

disciplinary proceeding, such as being “completely denied the opportunity to put on a

27

defense through specifically identified witnesses who possessed exculpatory evidence”).

28

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Benyard is dismissed without prejudice to
-88

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Benyard retaliated against Plaintiff by issuing

2

a false RVR.

3

The Complaint alleges that Defendants Jones and Cortez conspired with Defendant

4

Benyard, their supervisor, by changing their version of the facts with respect to the

5

January 18, 2013 altercation. If Plaintiff prevailed on this claim, it would “necessarily

6

imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed....” Id. at 648. Plaintiff’s conspiracy

7

claim against Defendants Benyard, Jones, and Cortez for conspiring to make Plaintiff the

8

aggressor in the January 18, 2013 altercation is dismissed without prejudice.1

9

Defendants’ objection is sustained.2
ii. Retaliation Claim Against Paramo and Suglich

10
11

Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has stated

12

retaliation claims against Defendants Paramo and Suglich for refusing to process

13

Plaintiff’s grievances and appeals. (R&R, ECF No. 55 at 78:5-79:11). Defendants

14

contend that Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to Paramo and Suglich are conclusory and

15

do not suggest that these Defendants ever received Plaintiff’s appeals.

16
17

1

The magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim be dismissed
with respect to Defendants Benyard, Jones, and Cortez on the ground that Plaintiff’s
18 allegations are too conclusory. The Court instead dismisses Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim
against Defendants Benyard, Jones, and Cortez based on Heck v. Humphrey.
19

2

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

To the extent Plaintiff asserts that his 90-day good-time credit loss has in fact
been restored, the Complaint contains no such allegation, and Plaintiff has not submitted
evidence in support of this assertion. To the extent Plaintiff contends that Heck is
inapplicable because he has an opportunity to restore his 90-day good-time credit loss,
Plaintiff’s contention must be rejected. Until and unless Plaintiff’s good-time credits are
restored, Plaintiff’s claims related to the false RVR are barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
See, e.g., Iniguez v. McGrath, No. C. 02-3532, 2002 WL 31007479, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 4, 2002) (“[P]laintiff may not bring a civil rights action based on the discipline or
the disciplinary proceedings unless and until the time credit forfeiture is reversed or
otehrwise invalidated.”); Ortega v. Walker, No. 10-cv-0998, 2010 WL 2889067, at *2
(E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010) (noting that “the complaint must be dismissed unless the
plaintiff can show that the conviction or setence has been invalidated or the good-time
credits restored[,]” where a § 1983 claim called into doubt the validity of prison
disciplinary proceedings resulting in a loss of 150 days of good-time credits); Robinson
v. Dennis, No. 103CV5859, 2006 WL 236946, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2006) (“Because
the punishment imposed at the disciplinary hearing affects the duration of plaintiff’s
sentence, plaintiff’s due process claim is barred until such time as plaintiff invalidates the
result of the disciplinary hearing.”) (emphasis added). Plaintiff may allege facts related
to the restoration of good-time credits in an amended complaint.
-99

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

Plaintiff contends that he filed multiple grievances against Defendants Paramo and

2

Suglich. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Suglich had a direct duty to address Plaintiff’s

3

grievances because Defendant Suglich’s subordinates were not properly processing his

4

appeals and Defendant Suglich “encourage[d] the plaintiff to communicate with him if

5

I have any future issues regarding the Inmate Appeals Office.” (ECF No. 62 at 3).

6

Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff’s documentary evidence “clearly establish[es] and

7

supports the Magistrate Judge[’s] conclusion” that Defendant Paramo failed to process

8

Plaintiff’s appeals. Id. Plaintiff contends that appeals that did not reach Defendant

9

Paramo were “as results [sic] of Defendants’ [sic] Paramo’s subordinates [sic]

10

misconduct.” Id.

11

The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff had plausibly alleged adverse action

12

taken by Defendant Suglich against Plaintiff for refusing to process his October 30, 2012

13

appeal, which was never processed. The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff had

14

plausibly alleged adverse action taken by Defendant Paramo because the Complaint

15

alleges that Defendant Paramo failed to properly process Plaintiff’s grievances, and the

16

exhibits attached to the Complaint contain administrative appeals alleging that Defendant

17

Paramo failed to properly process Plaintiff’s grievances.

18

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Paramo is the warden of RJD and that

19

Defendant Suglich is an associate warden of RJD. The numerous exhibits to the

20

Complaint demonstrate that RJD has a formal grievance procedure. The numerous

21

exhibits to the Complaint demonstrate that Plaintiff’s numerous appeals were handled by

22

persons with positions other than warden and associate warden. The Complaint alleges

23

no facts demonstrating that Defendants Suglich and Paramo were responsible for

24

processing Plaintiff’s administrative appeals by virtue of their respective positions. The

25

Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that Defendants Suglich and

26

Paramo took retaliatory adverse action against Plaintiff.

27
28

Defendants’ objection is sustained.
iii. Retaliation Claim Against Benyard
-1010

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff has stated a retaliation claim against

2

Defendant Benyard for retaliating against Plaintiff for submitting a complaint to

3

Defendant Paramo. The magistrate judge identified the following adverse actions that

4

Defendant Benyard allegedly conducted: (1) declining to make a determination that

5

Plaintiff had been wrongfully terminated; (2) retaining Plaintiff in administrative

6

segregation following his return from the hospital after the January 18, 2013 altercation;

7

(3) issuing a false RVR against Plaintiff that accused Plaintiff of instigating the January

8

18, 2013 altercation; and (4) failing to provide Plaintiff with a Classification Committee

9

hearing for more than fourteen months.

10

Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has stated a

11

retaliation claim against Defendant Benyard. (R&R, ECF No. 55 at 80:20-82:9).

12

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s discrimination grievance was never processed, and

13

that Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Defendant Benyard knew about Plaintiff’s

14

protected activity. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to show

15

Plaintiff’s discrimination grievance would motivate Defendant Benyard to retaliate

16

against him.

17

Plaintiff contends that “Defendants concede that plaintiff alleges sufficient facts

18

that defendant Benyard took various adverse actions against the plaintiff.” (ECF No. 62

19

at 4). Plaintiff contends that Defendant Benyard was on notice of Plaintiff’s protected

20

activities. Plaintiff contends that he has established that the adverse actions taken by

21

Defendant Benyard were “because of” Plaintiff’s protected activities because “there is no

22

legitimate reason for all of Defendants’ Benyards’ [sic] retaliatory bias and actions....”

23

Id. at 5.

24

Attached to the Complaint is a “Memorandum” dated January 13, 2013, and

25

addressed to Defendant Paramo from Carlos Rios. (ECF No. 1-1 at 112). The

26

“Memorandum” alleges that RJD discriminates against minority inmates in job

27

assignments for inmate barbers. The “Memorandum” alleges that Defendant Benyard

28

was informed on January 10, 2013, of inmates’ needs for the barber job assignment, but
-1111

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

that he “failed to redress the wrong.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 113). The Complaint alleges that

2

on February 4, 2013, Defendant Benyard decided to place Plaintiff in administrative

3

segregation, and on February 16, 2013, Plaintiff received the fabricated false RVR, where

4

Defendant Benyard falsely claimed that Plaintiff admitted to instigating the January 18,

5

2013 altercation.

6
7

As discussed above, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Benyard retaliated against him
by issuing a false RVR is barred by Heck v. Humphrey.

8

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Benyard retaliated by declining to make a

9

determination that Plaintiff had been wrongfully terminated from his prison job

10

assignment and by failing for more than fourteen months to provide Plaintiff with a

11

Classification Committee hearing. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was removed

12

from his prison job assignment on May 16, 2012. Plaintiff alleged in a prison appeal that

13

he had been waiting for a Classification Committee hearing “for over 6 months” as of

14

October 2012. The Court concludes that these allegedly adverse actions lack a sufficient

15

nexus to Plaintiff’s submission of the January 13, 2013 “Memorandum” because they

16

occurred or started occurring months before Plaintiff submitted the “Memorandum.”

17

The remaining allegation of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is that Defendant Benyard

18

decided to place Plaintiff in administrative segregation upon his return from the hospital

19

in retaliation for Plaintiff submitting the “Memorandum.” The Complaint plausibly

20

alleges protected activity, adverse action, and a causal link between the two. The

21

Complaint plausibly alleges that Defendant Benyard had a motive to retaliate against

22

Plaintiff, and the causal link is strengthened by the close temporal proximity between the

23

protected activity (January 13, 2013) and the adverse action (February 4, 2013). The

24

magistrate judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff has stated a retaliation claim against

25

Defendant Benyard, but only to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Benyard

26

placed him in administrative segregation in retaliation for Plaintiff submitting the

27

“Memorandum” to Defendant Paramo.

28

Defendants’ objection is sustained in part.
-1212

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

iv. Equal Protection

1
2

Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has stated an

3

equal protection claim against Defendants Benyard and Cavazos. (R&R, ECF No. 94:21-

4

95:18). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he was treated

5

differently from similarly situated inmates. Defendants contend that distinctions based

6

on mental ability and immigration status are subject to rational basis review. Defendants

7

contend Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that the alleged classification based on

8

developmental disability and immigration status is without rational basis.

9

Plaintiff contends that he has stated an equal protection claim against Defendants

10

Benyard and Cavazos because he attached a grievance to the Complaint, arguing “that he

11

had been discriminate[d] against because of his developmental disabilities and his

12

immigration status.” (ECF No. 62 at 5). Plaintiff contends that denying Plaintiff

13

participating in “Re Entry Programs” based on immigration status and developmental

14

disabilities constitutes discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at

15

6.

16

The Complaint alleges that all Defendants violated his right to “not be treated

17

cruelly or different from other[s] similar[ly] situate[d].” (ECF No. 1 at 29). Attached as

18

an exhibit to the Complaint is the August 5, 2013 CDCR Form 602. (ECF No. 1-1 at 86-

19

87). The August 5, 2013 CDCR Form 602 alleges that Defendants Benyard, Cavazos,

20

Paramo, and certain non-defendants denied him access to services and rehabilitative

21

programs due to Plaintiff’s disabilities and “INS hold.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 87). Another

22

exhibit attached to the Complaint appears to be a report on Plaintiff’s prisoner

23

classification, prepared by Defendants Benyard and Cavazos. (ECF No. 1-1 at 85). The

24

report states that “I/M does not qualify for Re-Entry due to CSRA of LOW. ICE HOLD

25

and....” Id. The report further states that Plaintiff is “not eligible for MSF due to CLS,

26

ICE HOLD A78056344 and TIME.” Id.

27

The Complaint fails to allege any facts in support of an equal protection claim.

28

The cited exhibits do not make out a plausible equal protection claim without any
-1313

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

supporting factual allegations in the Complaint. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has

2

failed to state an equal protection claim against any Defendant. Defendants’ objection

3

is sustained.

4
5

B. Plaintiff’s Objections
i. Conspiracy

6

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to state

7

a conspiracy claim against Defendants Benyard, Cavazos, Hernandez, Allamby, Cortez,

8

and Jones. (ECF No. 55 at 70:18-27). Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge should

9

have applied the same reasoning for these Defendants that he did for Defendants Behra,

10

Olson, and Ramirez. Plaintiff contends that whether these Defendants conspired is a

11

question of fact for the jury. Plaintiff contends that he has alleged that Defendant

12

Benyard acted similarly to Defendant Behra in fabricating a “false RVR.” (ECF No. 56

13

at 8). Plaintiff contends that he has sufficiently alleged that Defendants Benyard and

14

Cavazos “jointly denied not only plaintiff’s Equal Protection of the Law ... , and

15

conspired to obstruct justice and denied plaintiff’s due process of law.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff

16

contends that he has sufficiently alleged that Defendants Benyard, Allamby, Hernandez,

17

Cortez, and Jones fabricated false evidence.

18

Hernandez and Allamby conspired with Defendant Benyard by signing the “RVR

19

upholding the arbitrary decision and guilty finding....” Id. at 10.

20
21
22

Plaintiff contends that Defendants

Defendants contend that allegations that each Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ rights
is insufficient to support the inference that they acted together.
a. Conspiracy between Defendants Benyard and Cavazos

23

The Complaint alleges that on November 19, 2012, Defendant Benyard, a Facility

24

Correctional Captain; Defendant Cavazos, a Correctional Counselor; and Defendant Abad

25

“intentionally interfered with the plaintiff[’s] due process of law and procedural

26

protection which are afforded to prisoner[s] before they can be removed from a job

27

assignment or deprived of any right or privileges. (ECF No. 1 at 16). The Complaint

28

alleges that these Defendants “not only conspired ... , but also retaliated by [taking] an
-1414

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

adverse action of not provid[ing] ... the plaintiff with a UCC hearing in more than 14

2

months, because of plaintiffs[’s] civil right[s] action filed against his employer and other

3

RJD top officials and filing grievances against them....” Id. The Complaint alleges that

4

Defendants Benyard, Cavazos, and Abad refused to provide Plaintiff with a “UCC

5

process” and refused to answer Plaintiff’s repeated requests. Id. at 17. The Complaint

6

alleges that on January 13, 2013, Plaintiff sent a memorandum regarding discrimination

7

in Plaintiff’s job assignment to Defendant Benyard. Attached to the Complaint is a Form

8

CDCR 602, dated August 7, 2013, where Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Benyard and

9

Cavazos declined to provide Plaintiff with “services and rehabilitative programs on the

10

grounds that the inmate[] has developmental disabilities and INS hold, in violation of the

11

ADA and 14th Amend. under the equal protection of the law.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 87).

12

The Complaint alleges no facts which would permit the inference that Defendants

13

Benyard and Cavazos had a “meeting of the minds” with each other or other RJD officials

14

to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Mendocino Environmental Cntr. v. Mendocino

15

Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1301 (9th Cir. 1999). Despite allegations that Defendant Benyard

16

failed to provide Plaintiff with due process, retaliated against Plaintiff, and discriminated

17

against Plaintiff, the Complaint alleges no facts showing that Defendants Benyard and

18

Cavazos had a “meeting of the minds” intending “to accomplish some unlawful

19

objective...” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). The magistrate judge

20

correctly concluded that “Plaintiff’s allegations amount to conclusory allegations

21

unsupported by specific facts that [Defendants Benyard and Cavazos] conspired with one

22

another to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (ECF No. 55 at 70).

23

b. Conspiracy between Defendant Allamby

24

and other RJD Officials

25

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Allamby held a disciplinary hearing on

26

October 16, 2013 with respect to the January 18, 2013 altercation. The Complaint alleges

27

that Defendant Allamby allowed Plaintiff to call some witnesses, but disallowed Plaintiff

28

to call other witnesses or introduce a “Videotape Recorder of the date of the incident in
-1515

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

question.” (ECF No. 1 at 24). The Complaint alleges that Defendant Allamby excluded

2

this evidence without explanation or penological justification. The Complaint alleges that

3

Defendant Allamby’s finding of guilty after the hearing is “proof of Defendant A.

4

Allamby[’s] conspiracy and retaliatory bias against the Plaintiff....” Id. at 25.

5

The Complaint alleges no facts which would permit the inference that Defendant

6

Allamby had a “meeting of the minds” with other RJD officials to violate Plaintiff’s

7

constitutional rights. Mendocino Environmental Cntr., 192 F.3d at 1301. The magistrate

8

judge correctly concluded that “Plaintiff’s allegations amount to conclusory allegations

9

unsupported by specific facts that [Defendant Allamby conspired with other RJD

10

officials] to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (ECF No. 55 at 70).

11

c. Conspiracy Between Hernandez and other

12

RJD Officials

13

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Hernandez was the Chief Disciplinary

14

Officer who approved and enforced the false charges in the RVR issued in response to

15

the January 18, 2013 altercation.

16

The Complaint alleges no facts which would permit the inference that Defendant

17

Hernandez had a “meeting of the minds” with other RJD officials to violate Plaintiff’s

18

constitutional rights. Mendocino Environmental Cntr., 192 F.3d at 1301. The magistrate

19

judge correctly concluded that “Plaintiff’s allegations amount to conclusory allegations

20

unsupported by specific facts that [Defendant Hernandez conspired with other RJD

21

officials] to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (ECF No. 55 at 70).

22

d. Conspiracy Between Benyard, Cortez, and Jones

23

As discussed above, Plaintiff’s claim that Benyard, Cortez, and Jones conspired to

24

fabricate evidence to make Plaintiff the aggressor of the January 18, 2013 altercation is

25

barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Accordingly, the Court does not address the sufficiency

26

of these allegations.

27
28

Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
iii. Due Process
-1616

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

a. Termination of Plaintiff’s Job Assignment

2

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that “the Court need not reach

3

the issue of what process is due” with respect to the termination of Plaintiff’s job

4

assignment. (ECF No. 56 at 11; R&R, ECF No. 55 at 88:15-27). Defendants contend

5

that Plaintiff has no liberty interest in his prison job.

6

The magistrate judge correctly concluded that the Due Process Clause of the

7

Fourteenth Amendment does not create a property or liberty interest in prison

8

employment. See Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). Because there

9

is no property or liberty interest in prison employment, the Due Process Clause does not

10

apply; no process is due. See Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70

11

(1972) (“The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of

12

interest encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and

13

property.”). Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

14

b. Hearings on Fighting RVR

15

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s due process

16

claim based on hearings on the fighting RVR should be dismissed. (R&R, ECF No. 55

17

at 89:1-92:18). Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge erred in not taking into

18

account exhibits that demonstrate that Plaintiff was assigned a staff assistant for his

19

administrative segregation hearing. Plaintiff contends that he should have been permitted

20

to call the staff assistant at the RVR hearing on the January 18, 2013 altercation.

21

Defendants contend that the documents attached to the Complaint contradict

22

Plaintiffs’ assertion, and that they only demonstrate that he was assigned a staff assistant

23

for the initial hearing, rather than the rehearing.

24

Plaintiff concedes that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) bars his due

25

process claim with respect to the disciplinary proceedings that resulted in a 90-day credit

26

loss. See ECF No. 56 at 12 (“Plaintiff further contends that although Heck v. Humphrey,

27

512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars Plaintiff’s due process claim, Defendants have not

28

establish[ed] why it should also bar the other claims arising from Plaintiff[’s] other
-1717

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

claim[s]....”). The Court need not determine whether the Complaint plausibly alleges that

2

Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to present a staff assistant at his disciplinary hearing

3

because this claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

4

iv. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

5

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to

6

state a cruel and unusual punishment claim against any defendant. (R&R, ECF No. 55

7

at 96:20-28). Plaintiff contends that he has stated an Eighth Amendment claim because

8

Defendants have acted with malice, have caused him severe emotional distress, and have

9

endangered him in their abuse of power.

10

As the magistrate judge correctly observed, “[p]rison conditions do not violate the

11

Eighth Amendment unless they amount to ‘unquestioned and serious deprivations of

12

basic human needs’ or of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” (ECF No.

13

55 at 95) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The magistrate judge

14

correctly concluded that the Complaint fails to allege facts to support the deprivation of

15

any basic human need. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

16

C. Qualified Immunity

17

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Defendants Abad,

18

Allamby, Hernandez, Cortez, and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity because

19

Plaintiff has stated a claim against each of these Defendants and alleged the deprivation

20

of a clearly established right. (R&R, ECF No. 55 at 99:1-100:7).

21

The Court has accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations that all claims

22

against Abad, Allamby, Hernandez, Cortez, and Jones be dismissed. Therefore, the

23

magistrate judge correctly concluded that these Defendants are entitled to qualified

24

immunity. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

25

Defendant objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Defendants Paramo,

26

Suglich, Benyard, and Cavazos are not entitled to qualified immunity. (R&R, ECF No.

27

55 at 99:1-100:7).

28

The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s conspiracy, due process, equal
-1818

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

protection, and cruel and unusual punishment claims against Defendants Paramo and

2

Suglich be dismissed. The Court accepts these recommendations. The Court dismissed

3

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants Paramo and Suglich. With no claims

4

remaining against Defendants Paramo and Suglich, Defendants Paramo and Suglich are

5

entitled to qualified immunity.

6

The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s conspiracy, due process, and

7

cruel and unusual punishment claims against Defendant Benyard be dismissed. The

8

Court accepts these recommendations. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s equal protection

9

claim against Defendant Benyard. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s retaliation claim

10

against Defendant Benyard, with the exception of the allegation that Defendant Benyard

11

retaliated against Plaintiff for submitting the “Memorandum” by placing him in

12

administrative segregation. With the exception of the allegation that Defendant Benyard

13

retaliated against Plaintiff for submitting the “Memorandum” by placing him in

14

administrative segregation, Defendant Benyard is entitled to qualified immunity.

15

The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s conspiracy, retaliation, due

16

process, and cruel and unusual punishment claims against Defendant Cavazos be

17

dismissed. The Court accepts these recommendations. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

18

equal protection claim against Defendant Cavazos. Accordingly, Defendant Cavazos is

19

entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants’ objection is sustained in part.3

20

VI. Conclusion

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 55)

22

is ADOPTED in part and NOT ADOPTED in part. The Report and Recommendation is

23

adopted, except for page 78, line 5 to page 79, line 11; page 80, line 20 to page 82, line

24

9; page 92, note 39; and page 94, line 21 to page 95, line 18. Page 68, line 26 to page 72,

25

line 16 is not adopted with respect to Defendants Benyard, Jones, and Cortez. Page 99,

26
27

3

Defendants Abad, Allamby, Alvarez, Cavazos, Cortez, Hernandez, Jones,
Paramo, Rutledge, Spence, and Suglich are entitled to qualified immunity only on the
28 grounds that Plaintiff’s claims against them, as currently pled, fail to establish a a
plausible constitutional violation.
-1919

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

line 1 to page 100, line 7 is not adopted to the extent it is inconsistent with the disposition

2

below.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

4

order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. Defendants’ motion for

5

summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated in

6

the Report and Recommendation. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) is

7

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated in the Report and Recommendation,

8

except as follows:

9

1. All retaliation and conspiracy claims arising from Plaintiff’s disciplinary

10

hearings and the RVR issued for the January 18, 2013 altercation are

11

dismissed without prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphrey;

12

2. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants Paramo and Suglich is

13

dismissed without prejudice;

14

3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Benyard is dismissed

15

without prejudice, with the exception of the claim that Defendant Benyard

16

retaliated against Plaintiff for submitting the “Memorandum” to Defendant

17

Paramo by placing him in administrative segregation, and Defendant

18

Benyard is entitled to qualified immunity, with the exception of the claim

19

that Defendant Benyard retaliated agianst Plaintiff for submitting the

20

“Memorandum” to Defendant Paramo by placing him in administrative

21

segregation;

22

4. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against Defendants Benyard and

23

Cavazos is dismissed without prejudice;

24

5. Defendants Paramo, Suglich, and Cavazos are entitled to qualified

25

immunity.

26
27
28
-2020

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)

1

No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file a first

2

amended complaint.

3

DATED: September 1, 2015

4
5

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
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
-2121

14cv1073 WQH (DHB)