(PC)Wright v. Hansan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL WEBSTER WRIGHT, No. 2:17-cv-260-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. LEWIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil action. On February 12, 18 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint. ECF No. 21. The court determined, in 19 relevant part, that plaintiff had stated a viable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act 20 and Rehabilitation Act “against the California Department of Corrections, California State Prison- 21 Sacramento, and its ‘Reasonable Accommodations Panel’ for refusing him single-cell status.” Id. 22 at 2. Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) filed an 23 answer on September 13, 2019. ECF No. 28. However, the United States Marshal was unable to 24 effect service of process on defendants California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP, Sac”) and the 25 CSP-Sac Reasonable Accommodations Panel (“RAP”). ECF Nos. 37, 39. The unexecuted 26 summonses state that per the Office of the Attorney General, these are “non-entities,” which they 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 cannot represent. Id. The answer filed on behalf the CDCR points out that neither the RAP (a 2 committee made up of healthcare providers and custody staff) nor the CSP-SAC (a prison facility 3 operated by the CDCR under California Penal Code sections 5000, 5003) are separate legal 4 entities capable of being sued. Thus, taking plaintiff’s allegations as true, the alleged conduct 5 giving rise to his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act is 6 attributable to employees or officers acting under the authority of CDCR. 7 Specifically, as plaintiff’s complaint concedes, CSP-Sac is a CDCR prison and the RAP is 8 comprised of various CDCR “health care providers and custody staff.” ECF No. 20 at 2, ¶ 6. For 9 that reason, the inclusion of CSP-Sac and the RAP as named defendants is unnecessary and 10 duplicative of defendant CDCR. See Applegate v. CCI, No. 1:16-cv-1343-MJS, 2017 U.S. Dist. 11 LEXIS 63428, at *6-7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017) (“CDCR cannot escape liability or limit 12 plaintiff’s relief merely by contending that the conduct is limited to a specific prison or 13 department.”). Indeed, the court can discern no advantage to plaintiff of proceeding against CSP- 14 Sac or the RAP, in addition to CDCR. See id. Rather than directing plaintiff to submit new 15 information about how to effect service of process on CSP-Sac and the RAP, components of the 16 CDCR which are not separate entities capable of being sued, the court recommends that these 17 named defendants be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (The court must dismiss any portion of 18 the complaint that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”) . 20 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that defendants CSP-Sac and the Reasonable 21 Accommodations Panel be dismissed. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 27 ///// 28 ///// wOAOe UVM □□□ □□□ VEE MVOC PQ PR OTe PAY VM VI 1 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | DATED: July 8, 2020. 4 Dating : heh bie 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28