Dragasits v. Yu, et al
Filing
62
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Court approves and adopts 58 Report and Recommendation and grants Defendant Yu's 51 Motion to Dismiss. Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Defendant Yu and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c)(3). The Clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/6/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEPHEN DRAGASITS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 16-cv-1998-BAS-JLB
ORDER:
(1) APPROVING AND
ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
v.
DR. JIN YU,
[ECF No. 58];
Defendant.
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT
YU’S MOTION TO DISMISS
16
17
[ECF No. 51];
18
(3) DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE SECTION 1983
CLAIMS IN THE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
19
20
[ECF No. 50];
21
(4) DECLINING TO EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER
STATE LAW CLAIMS;
22
23
24
AND
25
(5) CLOSING CASE
26
27
28
–1–
16cv1998
1
Plaintiff Stephen Dragasits, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
2
pauperis, filed this suit in August 2016 against ten defendants at the R.J. Donovan
3
Correctional Facility (RJD), alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth
4
Amendment rights under Section 1983 and a host of California state law claims, all
5
stemming from a lower bunk chrono Plaintiff desired. (ECF Nos. 1, 5.) Nearly two
6
and half years later after a mandatory screening of Plaintiff’s complaint and two prior
7
motion to dismiss orders, the case remains at the pleading stage. The operative
8
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleges First and Eighth Amendment claims
9
under Section 1983 and several state law claims against remaining Defendant Yu.
10
(ECF No. 50.) Yu has moved to dismiss. (ECF No. 51.)
11
12
On January 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt issued an extensive
13
Report and Recommendation (R&R) on Defendant Yu’s motion to dismiss the SAC.
14
(ECF No. 58.) Judge Burkhardt recommends that the Court grant Yu’s motion,
15
dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s federal claims against Yu, and decline supplemental
16
jurisdiction over any state law claims. (See generally ECF No. 58.) Objections to the
17
R&R were due by February 12, 2019. (Id. at 23.) This Court sua sponte extended
18
the time for Plaintiff to file any objections until February 27, 2019. (ECF No. 61.)
19
The Court has not received a timely objection from Plaintiff.
20
21
For the following reasons, the Court (1) approves and adopts the R&R in its
22
entirety, (2) grants Defendant Yu’s motion to dismiss the SAC, (3) dismisses
23
Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, (4) declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
24
over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and (5) closes this case.
25
26
DISCUSSION
27
The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are
28
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
–2–
16cv1998
1
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The
2
statute makes it clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate
3
judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
4
otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
5
banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
6
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district
7
court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the
8
Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and
9
recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328
10
F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district.
11
See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo
12
review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”);
13
Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting
14
report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report
15
despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155,
16
1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
17
18
In this case, the deadline for Plaintiff to file any objections to the R&R was
19
February 27, 2019.
20
Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia,
21
328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the SAC, the
22
motion to dismiss papers, and the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Burkhardt’s
23
reasoning is sound and her recommendations are proper.
(ECF No. 61.)
No timely objections have been lodged.
24
25
First, Plaintiff’s 56-page SAC, accompanied by 326 pages of exhibits, is
26
subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 8 because it is overly verbose, repetitive, and
27
fails to comply with the page limitations applicable to prisoner civil rights complaints
28
and multiple court orders regarding these limitations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; S.D. Cal.
–3–
16cv1998
1
L.R. 8.2 (“[c]omplaints by prisoners under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983”
2
are to be written on forms “supplied by the court” and any “additional pages [are] not
3
to exceed fifteen (15) in number.”); (ECF Nos. 46, 47; see also ECF No. 58 at 11.)
4
5
Second, Plaintiff has re-alleged an Eighth Amendment claim pertaining to his
6
lower bunk chrono, which the Court has already found does not state a claim. The
7
claim is therefore subject to dismissal once more. (ECF No. 58 at 11–12.)
8
9
Third, Plaintiff’s newly alleged First Amendment retaliation claim against
10
Defendant Yu fails to state a claim. (Id. at 12–19.) An inmate suing a prison official
11
for retaliation pursuant to Section 1983 must allege sufficient facts that show: (1) the
12
prison official took some adverse action against the inmate (2) because of (3) the
13
inmate’s protected conduct and that the adverse action (4) chilled the inmate’s
14
exercise of his First Amendment rights and (5) did not reasonably advance a
15
legitimate penological purpose. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir.
16
2005).
17
18
Although an inmate must “allege a causal connection between the adverse
19
action and the protected conduct,” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.
20
2012), Plaintiff cannot show a causal connection between his May 13, 2015 appeal of
21
Yu’s decision not to renew Plaintiff’s lower bunk chrono and Yu’s June 5, 2015
22
follow-up decision not to renew. As Judge Burkhardt reasoned, unlike Plaintiff’s
23
opposition to Defendants’ second motion to dismiss, Plaintiff omits any allegations
24
of retaliatory motive by Yu. (ECF No. 58 at 15.) Setting aside Plaintiff’s failure to
25
allege such a motive, there is also no chronology of events from which retaliatory
26
motive can be inferred. Yu had already decided to deny Plaintiff’s request for a lower
27
bunk chrono before Plaintiff ever pursued his May 13, 2015 appeal and expressly told
28
Plaintiff he would review Plaintiff’s x-rays to better understand the medical issues.
–4–
16cv1998
1
(Id. at 16.) Yu’s June 5, 2015 follow-up decision—which Plaintiff points to as
2
retaliation—was expressly based on Plaintiff’s lack of medical need as reflected in
3
Plaintiff’s x-rays, consistent with the statements Yu made when he first denied
4
Plaintiff’s request. (Id.) These circumstances do not plausibly show that Yu had a
5
retaliatory motive against Plaintiff for the appeal.
6
7
Although Plaintiff’s failure to show that Yu possessed a retaliatory motive is
8
sufficient to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, the Court additionally agrees
9
with Judge Burkhardt’s conclusions regarding other elements of a First Amendment
10
retaliation claim. Plaintiff has failed to allege that Yu’s decision not to renew
11
Plaintiff’s chrono would chill a person of ordinary firmness from further appeal of the
12
decision given that Yu in fact encouraged Plaintiff to pursue his appeal. (Id. at 17–
13
18.) Plaintiff has otherwise failed to show that Yu’s decision lacked a legitimate
14
penological interest because “the medical documents Plaintiff attaches to his SAC are
15
replete with evidence that Defendant Yu’s decision reflected his medical judgment
16
based upon the medical record before him.” (Id. at 18.)
17
18
Fourth, the Court agrees that because Plaintiff has failed to allege First and
19
Eighth Amendment violations for his federal Section 1983 claims, it is proper for the
20
Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the SAC’s state law claims. (ECF
21
No. 58 at 19); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999,
22
1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims
23
are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to
24
exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”). Dismissal of Plaintiff’s
25
claims obviates the need to address Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief because
26
such requests are not independent claims. See Pemberton v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC,
27
331 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1063 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
28
–5–
16cv1998
1
Fifth, and finally, the Court agrees that Plaintiff should not be permitted leave
2
to amend his Section 1983 claims. (ECF No. 58 at 21–22.) Plaintiff has already been
3
permitted to amend his pleadings twice. Despite these opportunities, Plaintiff has
4
repeatedly failed to correct expressly identified deficiencies in his Eighth Amendment
5
claim. See Smith v. Solis, 331 Fed App’x 482, 482-83 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district
6
court properly dismissed the action with prejudice because Smith’s second amended
7
complaint did not state a claim for deliberate indifference and [pro se plaintiff] Smith
8
failed to correct the defects.”).
9
Amendment claim the very facts which this Court found warranted a final opportunity
10
to amend to add such a claim despite the fact that Plaintiff did not raise a whiff of a
11
First Amendment claim until Defendants moved to dismiss for a second time. It is
12
not an abuse of discretion to deny Plaintiff a third opportunity to amend his pleadings.
13
See, e.g., Dutciuc v. Meritage Homes of Ariz., Inc., 462 Fed. App’x 658, 660 (9th Cir.
14
2011) (plaintiff failed to show that district court abused its discretion in refusing to
15
allow a fourth amended complaint).
16
Amendment claim would also be futile because Plaintiff cannot allege any facts that
17
would show that Defendant Yu’s actions created a chilling effect or did not reasonably
18
advance a legitimate correctional goal. (ECF No. 58 at 22.) It is therefore appropriate
19
to deny Plaintiff leave to amend his First and Eighth Amendment claims.
20
Accordingly, the Court approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Plaintiff has also failed to allege in his First
Any amendment by Plaintiff to his First
21
22
CONCLUSION & ORDER
23
For the foregoing reasons, the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the R&R
24
(ECF No. 58) and GRANTS Defendant Yu’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 51). The
25
Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against
26
Defendant Yu and DECLINES TO EXERCISE supplemental jurisdiction over the
27
state law claims asserted in the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Clerk
28
of the Court shall close the case.
–6–
16cv1998
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 6, 2019
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–7–
16cv1998
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?