(PC) Stuckey v. Juarez ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, Case No. 1:18-cv-01557-LJO-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 12 v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 13 J. JUAREZ, et al., (ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Andrew Kenneth Stuckey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 27, 2019, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s originally filed complaint, 20 and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Chanelo and Peacock for 21 violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but failed to state any 22 other cognizable claims against any other defendants. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was ordered to 23 either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the 24 cognizable claim. (Id. at 16.) 25 On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) On May 28, 26 2019, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and again found that 27 Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Chanelo and Peacock for violation of the 28 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but failed to state any other cognizable 1 claims against any other defendants. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file a second 2 amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable 3 claim. (Id. at 18.) 4 On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) On July 24, 5 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on 6 Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Chanelo and Peacock, and that all other claims and 7 Defendants be dismissed. (ECF No. 16.) On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the 8 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 17.) 9 First, the Court notes that in the filed objections, Plaintiff writes that his claim for 10 violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is against Defendants 11 Chanelo, Peacock, Salcedo, Marquez, Gaddis, and Tafoya. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) However, 12 Plaintiff’s equal protection claim was only brought against Defendants Chanelo and Peacock and 13 that portion of the complaint did not contain any facts concerning these other Defendants. (ECF 14 No. 15 at 23.) Defendants Salcedo, Marquez, Gaddis, and Tafoya were only named in the 15 deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth Amendment concerning their actions regarding the 16 alleged failure to properly interview Plaintiff after the attack. (ECF No. 15 at 14-16.) To the 17 extent Plaintiff is now alleging that Defendants Salcedo, Marquez, Gaddis, and Tafoya violated 18 his Fourteenth Amendment rights for their actions investigating the attack, such facts do not state 19 a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff argues that these Defendants failed 20 to properly interview him concerning the attack and who the perpetrator was, however, Plaintiff 21 concedes that he informed these Defendants that he had been attacked, and concedes that the 22 attacker, Inmate Poumele, and the other Samoan inmate, Inmate Maiava, were both in fact 23 charged with rules violations for possession of weapons stemming from the incident following the 24 interviews of all inmates. (ECF No. 15 at 16.) In addition, Plaintiff concedes he was found not 25 guilty for any of his actions during the incident. (Id.) Thus, the facts do not demonstrate Plaintiff 26 was treated differently from the Samoan inmates through the investigation and punishment phase 27 of the incident. 28 Second, regarding Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, 1 Plaintiff’s objections emphasize that Nurses Vitto and Palomino repeatedly refused to give 2 Plaintiff pain medication for head pain despite his repeated requests for such pain medication, and 3 refused his requests to see a physician. (ECF No. 17 at 13.) Plaintiff was eventually diagnosed 4 by Dr. Patel with posttraumatic headaches and was prescribed Ibuprofen. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff 5 repeatedly told Dr. Patel that the Ibuprofen was not working for his headaches and demanded a 6 CT Scan. (Id.) The facts alleged do not appear to rise even to the level of medical malpractice or 7 negligence, let alone demonstrate any of the Defendants denied, or intentionally interfered with 8 necessary medical treatment, or that any decision was medically unacceptable or chosen with a 9 conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health. See Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 10 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner—or 11 between medical professionals—concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to 12 deliberate indifference.”). 13 Third, regarding Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference for failure to protect him 14 during the prison riot, the cases cited by Plaintiff do not change the analysis conducted in the 15 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. In Stubbs, cited by Plaintiff, the inmate was 16 being chased down a corridor by twenty to thirty inmates and came across two guards who he 17 requested help from, and the guards entered another room and closed the door leaving the inmate 18 to fend for himself. Stubbs v. Dudley, 849 F.2d 83, 84 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit found 19 the “evidence supported the conclusion that [the officers] had adequate time to assess the serious 20 threat facing Stubbs and a fair opportunity to afford him protection at no risk to himself or the 21 security of the prison but nevertheless callously refused to permit Stubbs to pass with him to 22 safety behind the administration door.” Id. at 86-87. In the other case cased by Plaintiff, the 23 Sixth Circuit held that taking all evidence in favor of Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could conclude 24 the officers had an opportunity to prevent a stabbing death by: “(1) by opening the door to the 25 yard to permit Fails to elude Eggleston; (2) by restraining Eggleston at the door; (3) by shutting 26 the door before Eggleston could follow Fails into the yard; and (4) by intervening when Eggleston 27 attacked Fails in the yard as the guards looked on.” Walker v. Norris, 917 F.2d 1449, 1453 (6th 28 Cir. 1990). In Walker, there were multiple opportunities for the guards to intervene over an 1 extended time to stop the ongoing attack occurring by one inmate against one other inmate. Id. at 2 1451-52. The facts in the present case do not demonstrate that Defendants were deliberately 3 indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety, but were responding to a chaotic riot situation and taking 4 reasonable steps to maintain control through orders to the inmates to prone out in the yard, and 5 coordinated tactics between the team of officers utilizing weapons which in fact dissipated the 6 riot in less than one minute after Plaintiff was attacked, according to Plaintiff’s own complaint. 7 (ECF Nos. 11, 14.) 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 9 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 10 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 11 analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 24, 2019, (ECF No. 16), are 14 adopted in full; 15 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed June 7, 16 2019, (ECF No. 15), against Defendants Chanelo and Peacock for violation of the 17 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 18 3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state 19 claims upon which relief may be granted; and 20 4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 21 proceedings consistent with this order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: August 21, 2019 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28