(PC) Beaton v. Valley State Prison ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL NIVARD BEATON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00005-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS 13 v. ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS; AND 14 VALLEY STATE PRISON, ) GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND; ) 15 Defendant. ) (Doc. No. 12) ) 16 ) (THIRTY DAY DEADLINE) 17 Plaintiff Paul Nivard Beaton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 22 (Doc. No. 12.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 23 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on 24 February 19, 2020. (Doc. No. 13.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the 27 court declines to adopt the finds the findings and recommendations and instead will grant plaintiff one 28 1 final opportunity to amend his complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies in that pleading noted by 2 the magistrate judge. 3 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sergeant D. Miller retaliated against plaintiff by approving a 4 Rules Violation Report (RVR) based in part upon plaintiff’s threat to file an inmate grievance against 5 prison nursing staff. (Doc. No. 10.) The RVR in question, which was attached to plaintiff’s original 6 complaint and was authored by Miller, alleges that on November 14, 2019, plaintiff requested a refill 7 of medication (Capsaicin cream) from the licensed vocational nurse on duty that day (J. Valenzuela- 8 Quezada) and then threatened to file an inmate appeal when nurse Valenzuela-Quezada refused to 9 issue the medication to him on the ground that plaintiff had already received the medication on a 10 previous occasion. (Doc. No. 1 at 18.) The RVR in question reflects that plaintiff was charged with 11 violation of “Rule Number [] 1303,” which prohibits inmates from attempting to gain special 12 consideration from employees by use of bribery, threat, or other unlawful means. (Id.); see also 15 13 Cal. Code Regs. § 3013. 14 The pending findings and recommendations correctly explain that to proceed on a retaliation 15 claim, plaintiff must, among other things, plead facts which suggest an absence of legitimate 16 correctional goals for the challenged conduct and facts that, if proven, would show that the defendant 17 acted “because of” plaintiff’s prior engagement in protected conduct. (See Doc. 12 at 3.) 18 Plaintiff’s objections are difficult to decipher. Nonetheless, according to the court’s 19 interpretation of the assertions made therein, plaintiff now suggests for the first time in his objections 20 that nurse Valenzuela-Quezada denied him his refill on November 14, 2019 based upon a 21 misunderstanding of the amount of medication that had been provided to plaintiff prior to that date. 22 (See Doc. No. 12.) Specifically, plaintiff asserts that he had not received a refill prior to November 23 14, but rather received only a temporary allocation of a small amount of the prescribed medication and 24 was therefore due to receive a full refill. (Id. at 1-3.) Assuming these assertions to be true, such facts 25 could arguably satisfy the requirement that plaintiff plead specific facts suggesting an absence of a 26 legitimate correctional purpose for the issuance of the RVR. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 27 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (disciplinary action premised on false allegations cannot serve a legitimate 28 correctional goal). 1 As for the requirement that plaintiff plead facts that, if proven, would show that the defendant 2 || acted “because of” plaintiffs protected conduct, the RVR itself indicates that it was issued because 3 || plaintiff threatened to file an inmate grievance against nurse Valenzuela-Quezada. See Torricellas v. 4 || Bedford, No. EDCV 14-2489 AGA JW, 2016 WL 11518597, at *11 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2016) (“filin; 5 || and threatening to file an inmate appeal are protected activity’’). 6 Because the factual allegations contained in plaintiff's objections were not alleged in his 7 || operative complaint, he must amend his complaint to include those required factual allegations, as we 8 || as any other facts he can plead in good faith supporting his assertion that the issuance of the 9 || underlying RVR was premised on false or inaccurate information. 10 Accordingly, and in an abundance of caution in light of plaintiff’s new allegations set forth fo 11 || the first time in his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, 12 1. The court declines to adopt the February 5, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No 13 11); 14 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form; 15 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an amende 16 complaint addressing the issues outlined above; 17 4. Plaintiff's amended complaint shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length; and 18 5. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, he is 19 forewarned that the court will dismiss this action for failure to state a claim. 20 21 IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ae Dated: _ February 24, 2020 Yi AL Aaya 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28