(PC) King v. Valley State Prison ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALTON KING, 1:20-cv-00024-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 13 vs. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS WARDEN RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., AND 14 VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., CULINARY STAFF MEMBER MOOSEBAUR FOR VIOLATION OF RLUIPA, VIOLATION OF 15 Defendants. THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, AND ADVERSE CONDITIONS OF 16 CONFINEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT; AGAINST 17 DEFENDANT WARDEN RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF 18 IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT; AND THAT ALL OTHER 19 CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 20 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 21 Plaintiff Alton King is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 26, 2019, fifteen plaintiffs, 23 including Plaintiff Alton King, filed the Complaint commencing this action against Valley State 24 Prison (VSP), et al., for subjecting them to adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the 25 Eighth Amendment by serving substandard food in Kosher meals at VSP. (ECF No. 2.) On 26 January 7, 2020, the court issued an order severing the fifteen plaintiffs’ claims and opening new 27 cases for individual plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1.) Each of the fifteen plaintiffs was ordered to file an 28 1 amended complaint in his own case within thirty days. (Id.) On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff 2 filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 3 The First Amended Complaint names as defendants Valley State Prison (VSP), CDCR, 4 Raythel Fisher, Jr. (Warden, VSP), C. Hernandez (Food Manager, CFM1), Mohktar (Food 5 Administrator), Moosebaur (Culinary Supervisory Cook), Correctional Officer Keene, Anguiano 6 (Culinary Supervisory Cook), Lucero (Culinary Supervisory Cook), John Doe #1 (Headquarter 7 Community Resource Manager), John Doe #2 (Associate Director of the Division of Adult 8 Institutions), John Doe #3 (CDCR Departmental Food Administrator), Anderson (Inmate), and 9 J. Knight (Appeals Examiner) (collectively, “Defendants”). 10 The court screened the First Amended Complaint and found that it states cognizable 11 claims against Defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., and Culinary Staff Member Moosebaur 12 for violation of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and adverse 13 conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendant Warden 14 Raythel Fisher, Jr., for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; but fails 15 to state any other cognizable claims against any of the Defendants. On April 13, 2021, the court 16 issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a Second Amended Complaint, or (2) 17 notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. 18 (ECF No. 12.) 19 On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 20 claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 13.) 21 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 22 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Warden Raythel 23 Fisher, Jr., and Culinary Staff Member Moosebaur for violation of RLUIPA, 24 violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions 25 of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendant Warden 26 Raythel Fisher, Jr., for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth 27 Amendment; 28 2. That all remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 1 3. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the prison appeals process, verbal threats, state 2 law claims, and equal protection be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's 3 failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 4 4. Defendants Valley State Prison (VSP), CDCR, C. Hernandez (Food Manager, 5 CFM1), Mohktar (Food Administrator), Correctional Officer Keene, Lucero 6 (Culinary Supervisory Cook), Culinary Staff member Anguiano, John Doe #1 7 (Headquarter Community Resource Manager), John Doe #2 (Associate Director 8 of the Division of Adult Institutions), John Doe #3 (CDCR Departmental Food 9 Administrator), Anderson (Inmate), and J. Knight (Appeals Examiner) be 10 dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against 11 them upon which relief may be granted; and 12 5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 13 including initiation of service of process. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 16 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 17 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 20 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: May 23, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28