(PC) Gann v. Corral ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN, No. 1:19-cv-0439-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. CORRAL, et al., (Doc. No. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Nathanial Marcus Gann is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 July 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint and issued the pending findings and recommendations, recommending that claims 22 against defendants Correctional Officer B. Piper and Correctional Officer R. Garcia for retaliation 23 in violation of the First Amendment be allowed to proceed and that all other claims and 24 defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 15.) The findings and recommendations were served on the 25 parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. 26 at 23.) After an extension of time, on September 8, 2020, plaintiff timely mailed his objections to 27 the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 16–18.) 28 ///// 1 Plaintiff objected specifically to the recommendation that his First Amendment claims for 2 mail tampering, access to the courts, and free exercise of religion; Eighth Amendment claim for 3 cruel and unusual punishment; Fourteenth Amendment due process claims; and his claims 4 brought under state law be dismissed. (Doc. No. 17.) Therein, plaintiff makes many arguments 5 which could be summarized as objecting on the grounds that the findings and recommendations 6 held his claims to a higher standard of pleading specificity than his believes is required by the 7 applicable caselaw. (Id. at 1–2, 3, 5–6.) Plaintiff also identifies details included in his complaint 8 that he alleges were overlooked by the magistrate judge and provides additional information in 9 support of his claims. (See, e.g., 5–6.) 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 12 objections (Doc. No. 17), the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 13 the record and by proper analysis.1 The court has also reviewed plaintiff’s claims for violation of 14 his rights under the Eighth Amendment and for estoppel brought under the Fourteenth 15 Amendment and does not find either to be cognizable. 16 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual 17 punishments. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); see also Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 18 651, 670 (1977); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06 (1976). Neither accident nor negligence 19 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, however, for “[i]t is obduracy and wantonness, not 20 inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and 21 Unusual Punishments Clause.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319. Here plaintiff alleges he was subjected 22 to cruel and unusual punishment because certain defendants “engaged in a campaign to deny 23 plaintiff [] his personal property.” (Doc. No. 11 at 11.) He alleges that inter alia, legal 24 documents, science fiction manuscripts, and his only photographs of his mother and grandmother, 25 1 The undersigned notes that the pending findings and recommendations recommended the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim 2 asserting cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth 26 Amendment and plaintiff’s claim 3(D) asserting estoppel brought under the Fourteenth 27 Amendment. However, it appears that the findings and recommendations neglected to address the former and while the latter was inadvertently included in the state law claim discussion, it 28 appears that it was not addressed on the merits. (Doc. Nos. 11 at 5, 11, 13; Doc. No. 15.) 1 were taken and destroyed by the defendants. (Id.) 2 To state an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must allege facts that satisfy a two-part 3 test. First, the inmate must allege facts showing that objectively he suffered a sufficiently serious 4 deprivation of the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 298. Second, 5 the inmate must allege facts showing that subjectively each defendant had a culpable state of 6 mind in allowing the inmate’s deprivation of rights to occur. Id. at 299. Here, while the second 7 prong of the test is likely satisfied, and even though the court would not condone any of the 8 behavior alleged by plaintiff, the type of conduct alleged does not rise to the level of sufficiently 9 serious deprivation as required to assert a claim under the Eighth Amendment. 10 Plaintiff also alleges a claim of estoppel, which is purportedly brought under the 11 Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. No. 11 at 13.) In this claim, plaintiff alleges his typewriter was 12 confiscated and/or destroyed, and at some point during the appeal of his inmate grievance, he 13 alleges he was forced and coerced into signing a document that prevented him from seeking tort 14 damages in exchange for a replacement typewriter. Liberally construing this claim as a due 15 process violation would not give rise to a cognizable claim because there is no right to due 16 process for inmate grievances. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding 17 that because there is no right to any particular grievance process, it is impossible for due process 18 to have been violated by ignoring or failing to properly process grievances). To the extent in 19 asserting this claim plaintiff meant to invoke another provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, the 20 court is unable to determine what relief is sought. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 15) are 23 adopted; 24 2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed 25 December 16, 2019 (Doc. No. 11), against defendants Correctional Officer B. 26 Piper and Correctional Officer R. Garcia for retaliation in violation of the First 27 Amendment; 28 ///// 1 3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim; and 2 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 3 proceedings consistent with this order. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a “ 5 Li. wh F Dated: _ February 19, 2021 Sea 1" S098 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28