(PC) Rogers v. Warden ( 2020 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILIP JAMES ROGERS, No. 1:18-cv-0846 NONE JLT (PC) 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS TO: 14 (1) ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ON v. COGNIZABLE EIGHTH AMENDMENT 15 CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS; 16 RODRIGUEZ, et al., AND (2) DISMISS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 17 Defendants. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES WITH 18 PREJUDICE (Doc. 14) 19 20 Plaintiff Philip James Rogers, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights 21 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 22 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 In his complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. On June 22, 2017, plaintiff was working in 24 the kitchen at Kern Valley State Prison when Correctional Officer (“CO”) Rodriguez directed 25 plaintiff to stack boxes of ice in the walk-in freezer. (Doc. No. 13 at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff informed CO 26 Rodriguez that there was frozen water on the ground in the walk-in freezer, which would make it 27 dangerous to walk in there without proper shoes, and that several other inmates had fallen in the 28 freezer. (Id. at ¶¶ 3–4.) Plaintiff asked CO Rodriguez if he could get appropriate, rubber-soled 2 refused to allow plaintiff to obtain such boots even though someone else fell in the freezer two 3 days prior. (Id. at ¶ 4.) CO Rodriguez then threatened plaintiff with a rules violation write-up if 4 he did not comply with her order to proceed with his assigned task. (Id.) Plaintiff then 5 approached Sgt. Benecourt, the central kitchen supervisor, to again request boots, but Sgt. 6 Benecourt again refused the request and told plaintiff he “better be careful.” (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 10.) Not 7 wanting to be written-up for a rules violation, plaintiff walked into the freezer to load the ice, but 8 eventually lost his footing and fell onto his head and back. (Id. at ¶ 5.) As a result, plaintiff 9 remained in a wheelchair for four months. (Id. at ¶ 6.) The fall caused permanent nerve damage 10 that limits plaintiff’s mobility and causes him back pain and migraine headaches. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 11 Plaintiff brings Eighth Amendment claims asserting cruel and unusual punishment, failure to 12 protect, and deliberate indifference to medical needs. (Id. at ¶ 8–16.) 13 On October 4, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”) 14 recommending that plaintiff be permitted to proceed on his Eighth Amendment damages claims 15 against CO Rodriguez and Sgt. Benecourt in their individual capacities. (Doc. No. 14 at 4–6.) It 16 was also recommended that plaintiff be permitted to proceed on his claim for injunctive relief 17 against the defendants in their official capacities, but that any official capacity damages claim be 18 dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 3, 6.) Plaintiff has filed objections to this last aspect of the 19 findings and recommendations, contending that his official capacity damages claims should be 20 allowed to proceed. (Doc. No. 18). Plaintiff does not offer any valid authority to support this 21 objection. In fact, he cites authority that supports the opposite conclusion. (Id. at 1) (citing 22 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169–70 (1985), for the proposition that “Eleventh 23 Amendment immunity from damages in federal court action against state remains in effect when 24 state officials are sued for damages in their official capacity.”).) Although the court 25 acknowledges that a plaintiff proceeding pro se, as plaintiff is here, may be easily confused by the 26 law in this area, Graham plainly holds that “official-capacity damages action [cannot be] 27 maintained against [a state official] in federal court.” 473 U.S. at 170. Thus, plaintiff cannot 28 1 | pursue an official capacity damages claim in his case. His individual capacity damages claim, 2 | however, will be allowed to proceed. 3 In sum, the court has reviewed the file, performed a de novo review in accordance with 4 | the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, and finds the findings and 5 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 6 | Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 4, 2019, are adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiff may proceed in this action against Kern Valley State Prison Correctional 9 Officer Rodriguez and Sergeant Benecourt on his damages claim for deliberate 10 indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff may also proceed on an 11 official capacity claim for prospective injunctive relief requiring that proper safety gear 12 and clothing be provided to prisoners before the type of work being performed by 13 plaintiff at the time of his alleged injury is commenced; and 14 3. Plaintiff's official capacity claim for damages is dismissed with prejudice. IT Is SO ORDERED. ~ “ 16 Li fa £5 Dated: _ February 10, 2020 Sea 1" S09F 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28