Gillingham v. Unit Manager Jovanovich et al
Filing
13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are ADOPTED IN FULL. Gillingham's Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) because plaintiff has failed to state a claim and his claims are frivolous. Mailed to Gillingham. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 9/3/2015. (HEG, ) Modified on 9/3/2015 to correct text (HEG, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
FILED
SEP 0 3 2015
Clerk, u.s ..
District orMtnct Court
MissouJ~ntana
CV 14-57-H-DLC-JTJ
RICHARD WAYNE GILLINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
UNIT MANAGER JOVANOVICH and
SERGEANT MCDONALD,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered his Findings and
Recommendation on April9, 2015 recommending that Gillingham's Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Gillingham timely objected to the Findings and Recommendations and so
the Court will conduct de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
portions of the findings and recommendations not specifically objected to will be
reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). For the reasons listed below, the Court
adopts Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendation in full.
Gillingham filed this action alleging that Defendants denied him shoes for
one week. Gillingham further alleged that this resulted in the loss of his job and
1
prevented him from going to the dining hall to get his meals. Lastly, he included a
vague allegation that his treatment was different based upon his national origin.
On February 18, 2015, Judge Johnston issued an Order indicating that the
Complaint, as pled, failed to state a claim for relief and gave a detailed account of
how the defects could be cured by an amended complaint. Judge Johnston ordered
Gillingham to file an amended complaint no later than March 20, 2015. When
Gillingham failed to do so, Judge Johnston issued his Findings and
Recommendation recommending dismissal.
Gillingham objects to the Findings and Recommendation only insofar as it
states that he has shown his ability to communicate with the Court in writing. He
states that further written factual allegations would be a waste of the Court's time
and requests to be heard orally before a jury. Prior to Judge Johnston's Order
dated February 18, 2015, Gillingham had filed his written Complaint (Doc. 2), and
two supplements to his Complaint (Docs. 6, 8), the first of which included a
detailed and typed statement of facts pertaining to his allegations. Gillingham
clearly has the capacity and capability of submitting written documents to the
Court. By failing to amend his Complaint with additional facts to cure the defects,
Gillingham has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Judge Johnston did not clearly err in finding there was insufficient factual
2
allegations to show that the alleged denial of shoes rises to the level of an Eighth
Amendment violation. As pled, Gillingham at most alleges a de minimus injury.
Further, Gillingham has not shown that he possessed a protected liberty interest in
his prison job. Lastly, there is no clear error in Judge Johnston's finding that
Gillingham has not provided sufficient information to plausibly suggest
intentional discrimination because of national origin. Gillingham states only that
American inmates did not face the same "abuse." (Doc. 6 at 3.)
There being no clear error in Judge Johnston's remaining Findings and
Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendation
(Doc. 11) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Gillingham's Complaint (Doc. 2) is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter
and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that the Court
certifies pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this decision
would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that this dismissal
counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Plaintiff has failed to
3
state a claim and his claims are frivolous.
DATED this
3("L day ofSeptembe
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Jud e
United States District Court
4
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?