(PC) Parrish v. Bugarin ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAHEAL PARRISH, No. 1:19-cv-00490-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 14 BUGARIN, et al., DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 26) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Kaheal Parrish is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On August 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 21 found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment 22 against defendants Camargo and Martinez, but he failed to state any other cognizable claims 23 against any other defendants. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to either file a first amended 24 complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Doc. 25 No. 22.) On October 2, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed on the 26 cognizable claims identified by the court. (Doc. No. 25.) In his notification, plaintiff also stated 27 that he wished to preserve his objection to a portion of the screening order finding that he had not 28 stated a cognizable Equal Protection claim. (Id.) 1 Accordingly, on October 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s complaint against 3 defendants Camargo and Martinez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. No. 4 26.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed 5 from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. The 6 magistrate judge also noted plaintiff’s objection regarding his Equal Protection claim, and 7 informed plaintiff that he may wish to preserve his objection in response to the findings and 8 recommendations. (Id.) 9 On October 29, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, 10 again arguing that he had stated a cognizable Equal Protection claim in his complaint.1 (Doc. No. 11 28.) Specifically, plaintiff contends he is a “member of a protected class pursuant to the 12 Americans with Disability [sic] Act (ADA) of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 13 1973,” and alleges that defendants “imposed a wanton retaliatory act against Plaintiff as a direct 14 result of being a mental health participant and protected class member.” (Id. at 1–2.) However, 15 “the disabled do not constitute a suspect class for equal protection purposes,” Lee v. City of Los 16 Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 687 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1155 17 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted)), and thus plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim 18 cannot be sustained under the theory that he was discriminated against because of his membership 19 in a protected class. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 21 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 22 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 23 by proper analysis. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 27 1 On October 13, 2020, plaintiff also filed another copy of his notice of willingness to proceed on cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 27.) As this document appears to be a photocopy of the plaintiff’s 28 original notification to the court filed October 2, 2020, (Doc. No. 25), it will be disregarded. 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 7, 2020, (Doc. No. 26), are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's complaint, filed April 15, 2019, (Doc. No. 1), 5 against defendants Camargo and Martinez for retaliation in violation of the First 6 Amendment; 7 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state 8 claims upon which relief may be granted; and 9 4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this 10 order. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 2 Dated: _ January 22, 2021 J aL A 4 7 a 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28