Edwards v. CDCR et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 42 and granting 36 Motion to Dismiss. The Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. All other pending motins and requests are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/20/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMUEL EDWARDS,

12

CASE NO. 15cv174-LAB (JMA)
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND

vs.
13
14
15

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Samuel Edwards, a prisoner in state custody proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional

19

rights. After two dismissals, Edwards filed his second amended complaint (the “SAC”).

20

Defendants then moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The motion

21

was referred to Magistrate Judge Jan Adler for a report and recommendation.

22

On February 23, 2016, Judge Adler issued his report and recommendation (the

23

“R&R”). The R&R ordered that any objections be filed by March 11, 2016. Edwards then

24

moved for an additional 30 days to file his objections to the R&R. The only reason he gave

25

for requesting the extension was that he needed it in order to prepare a “thorough and

26

competent reply” to the R&R. The Court granted the request and ordered Edwards to file

27

is objections no later than April 8, 2016, but cautioned Edwards that if he needed more time

28

he must request it, and must explain why he needed it.

-1-

15cv174

1
2

Since then, Edwards has not filed his objections to the R&R, nor any request for more
time, nor anything else.

3

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

4

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

5

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

6

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

7

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This

8

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.

9

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district

10

judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection

11

is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

12

2003) (en banc).

13
14

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it to be correct, although in need of some
additional explanation.

15

Edwards’ principal claim is that he was placed in administrative segregation (Ad-Seg)

16

without receiving the process due him. As the R&R points out, in order to invoke due

17

process rights, Edwards must first establish he has a liberty interest in avoiding placement

18

in Ad Seg. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

19

539, 557–58 (1974). There is ordinarily no liberty interest in avoiding placement in Ad-Seg.

20

See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003). “ [A]dministrative segregation

21

is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point

22

in their incarceration.” Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983) (abrogated on other

23

grounds by Sandin, 515 U.S. 472). Edwards has not alleged facts to show he had a

24

protected liberty interest in avoiding Ad-Seg. While the R&R considers alternative reasons

25

for dismissal, this is the most compelling.

26

One of Edwards’ claims is that certain of his personal belongings were taken from him

27

while he was in Ad-Seg and either lost or damaged. But the SAC shows the state provided

28

///
-2-

15cv174

1

post-deprivation remedies, which he attempted to make use of.1 (SAC at 6, 11.) While

2

temporary confiscation of his property was in accordance with state procedure, its loss or

3

damage was not.

4

deprivation remedy, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531–33 (1984), which California

5

provides. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code

6

§§ 810–895) (“California Law provides an adequate post- deprivation remedy for any

7

property deprivations.”)

Therefore, all that due process required was a meaningful post-

8

Finally, the R&R refers in various places to “the record” in this case. (See, e.g., R&R

9

at 12:16–28.) When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court considers only the pleadings

10

not evidence. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002).

11

But the Court may consider documents attached to the complaint, and treat them as part of

12

the complaint. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555

13

n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990). That is what the R&R did, and what the Court does: the “record” refers

14

to documents attached to the SAC, not to extrinsic evidence.

15

With these additions, the Court finds the R&R to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The

16

motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the SAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All other

17

pending motions and requests are DENIED AS MOOT.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 20, 2016

21
22

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The SAC alleges he was unsuccessful, in part, because he sought $2 million in total
compensation for all his claims, which was beyond what the Board was authorized to award.
(SAC at 11.) After that, he did not pursue any more claims with the Board. (Id.)
-3-

15cv174