(PC) Godinez v. Kernan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL GODINEZ, No. 2:18-cv-2921-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Rafael Godinez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 18 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 17, 2019, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 29.) On 23 November 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, along with a 24 proposed Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 32.) 25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 26 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 27 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 28 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 1 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 5 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 6 judge’s analysis, except to the extent they recommend dismissal without leave to amend, as 7 discussed below. 8 The issues with the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27) identified by the Findings 9 and Recommendations (ECF No. 29) are not ameliorated by Plaintiff’s objections. Notably, the 10 recommendation of dismissal is based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive in the 11 original screening order concerning Plaintiff’s inclusion of unrelated claims against separate 12 defendants. (ECF No. 29 at 5.) In his objections, Plaintiff maintains that his Second Amended 13 Complaint complies with these joinder requirements (ECF No. 32 at 3-4). That is simply not the 14 case. As the magistrate judge noted, Plaintiff “is still pursuing multiple, unrelated claims which, 15 for obvious reasons, are ill-suited to litigation in a single action. The claims span various time 16 periods, and most bear no clear relation to each other.” (ECF No. 29 at 4.) For that reason, 17 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. 19 Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint, however, purports to join only three of 20 these claims: (1) an excessive force claim against Defendant Rios arising from an incident 21 occurring December 19, 2015 (ECF No. 32 at 54); (2) a cruel and unusual punishment claim 22 against Defendant Christenson asserting constitutionally inadequate medical care given on 23 December 23, 2019,1 following the December 19 incident (id. at 55); and (3) a due process claim 24 against Defendants Rios and Gambert asserting Plaintiff was falsely charged with a Rule 25 Violation Report as a consequence of his excessive force allegation, and was then denied certain 26 due process hearing rights (id. at 56). These claims are properly joined under Federal Rule of 27 1 The court recognizes Plaintiff likely meant for the year to read “2015.” 28 1 Civil Procedure 20, and Plaintiff has therefore demonstrated that the filing of a Third Amended 2 Complaint may not be futile as he has cured the defects identified in the Findings and 3 Recommendations.2 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 17, 2019 (ECF No. 29), are 6 ADOPTED to the extent they recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, 7 but REJECTED to the extent they recommend such dismissal be without leave to amend; 8 2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27) is DISMISSED, with leave to 9 amend; and 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, 11 attached to the Objections at ECF No. 32 pages 51 through 58. 12 4. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for screening of Plaintiff’s 13 Third Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: March 6, 2020 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 The Court did not screen the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(e)(2) and does not address at this time whether Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim on 27 which relief may be granted. The present Order simply finds Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint has cured the joinder issue identified in the magistrate judge’s Findings and 28 Recommendations.