(PC) Rodriguez v. Kernan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-00158-AWI-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., RELIEF 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 1, 6) 16 17 Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 21 Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, and this action be closed. (ECF No. 22 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 23 objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 11.) After 24 obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff timely filed written objections to the findings and 25 recommendations. (ECF No. 11.) 26 First, with respect to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff has not pled a cognizable 27 due process claim, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s findings have been nullified by the 28 May 2019, Frequently Asked Questions regarding Proposition 57 credit (“FAQ”), which are 1 posted in the dayroom of the housing area at Valley State Prison. Specifically, Plaintiff argues 2 that since the FAQ states that “Credit-earning opportunities are available to all inmates” without 3 any caveat as to availability, space, and resources, Plaintiff has a liberty interest in participating in 4 educational opportunities so that he can earn educational merit credit, and that his liberty interest 5 is being violated by his placement on a waiting list. (Id. at 1-3.) 6 However, Plaintiff’s objection is unpersuasive. As discussed in the Magistrate Judge’s 7 findings and recommendations, a protected state-created liberty interest does not come into 8 existence just because there is mandatory language in regulations or documents issued or 9 promulgated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See Wilkinson v. 10 Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223 (2005); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). The Court 11 finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that he has a protected liberty interest in participating in 12 educational classes so that he can earn educational merit credit. Therefore, Plaintiff has not pled 13 a cognizable due process claim. 14 Second, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by finding that Plaintiff was not 15 being treated differently than other similarly situated inmates because, statewide, other prisoners 16 are being allowed to participate in educational classes and earn educational merit credit. (ECF 17 No. 11, at 4.) However, as discussed in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has failed to 18 plead facts demonstrating that he is being intentionally treated differently from other similarly 19 situated inmates. See Ruston v. Town Bd. for the Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55, 59-60 (2d 20 Cir. 2010) (stating that plaintiffs bringing a class of one equal protection claim “must show an 21 extremely high degree of similarity between themselves and the persons to whom they compare 22 themselves[]”). 23 Third, Plaintiff asserts that he has pled a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference in 24 violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 11, at 4-5.) As discussed in the findings and 25 recommendations, Plaintiff’s claim that he is unable to participate in educational classes and earn 26 educational merit credits does not raise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because 27 Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that prison officials knew of and disregarded a substantial 28 risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health or safety. wOoOe 4:40 □□ EYOTA MUO, te POC a eT OY VV VI 1 Fourth, Plaintiff contends that he has pled a cognizable claim for violation of the 2 | Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) because placement 3 | ona waiting list amount to exclusion from a prison program, service, or activity. (Id. at 5-6.) 4 | However, as discussed in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has failed to state a 5 | cognizable claim for violation of the ADA and the RA because it is clear from Plaintiff's 6 | complaint that Plaintiff is not being denied participation in the educational classes due to any 7 | disability. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 9 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's 10 | objections, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 11 | by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are adopted in full; 14 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim 15 upon which relief may be granted; and 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _July 14, 2020 — 7 : 7 Cb bod — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28