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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW WILKE MORGAN, 1:20-cv-00029-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 13 vs. PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS FISHER, PAEZ, ANGUIANO, CHAPAS, LUCERO, 14 VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., MARQUEZ, CRUZ, AND 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 FISHER FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF 18 THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT; AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MOOSEBAUR FOR 19 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT; AND THAT ALL OTHER 20 CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 21 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 22 23 24 Plaintiff Matthew Wilke Morgan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 25 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 26, 2019, 26 fifteen plaintiffs, including Plaintiff Matthew Wilke Morgan, filed the Complaint commencing 27 this action against Valley State Prison (VSP), et al., for subjecting them to adverse conditions of 28 confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment by serving substandard food in Kosher meals 1 at VSP. (ECF No. 2.) On January 7, 2020, the court issued an order severing the fifteen 2 plaintiffs’ claims and opening new cases for individual plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1.) Each of the 3 fifteen plaintiffs was ordered to file an amended complaint in his own case within thirty days. 4 (Id.) On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint in this case. (ECF No. 5 10.) 6 The First Amended Complaint names as defendants Valley State Prison, CDCR, John 7 Doe #1 (Headquarter Community Resource Manager), John Doe #2 (Associate Director of the 8 Division of Adult Institutions), John Doe #3 (CDCR Departmental Food Administrator), J. 9 Knight (Appeals Examiner), T. Thornton (Appeals Analyst, VSP), Raythel Fisher, Jr. (Warden, 10 VSP), Timothy Anderson (inmate), John Doe #4 (inmate), Paez (Dining Hall Officer), Keene 11 (Housing Unit Officer), Avila-Gonzalez (Correctional Officer), Sergeant Clements, Sergeant 12 Santoya, C. Hernandez (Food Manager), Mohktar (Food Manager), Moosebaur (Culinary 13 Supervisor Cook II), Hayman (Culinary Supervisor Cook II), Cruz (Culinary Supervisor Cook), 14 Chapas (Culinary Supervisor Cook), Lucero (Culinary Supervisor Cook), Anguiano (Culinary 15 Supervisor Cook), and Marquez (Culinary Supervisor Cook). Plaintiff brings claims for violation 16 of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, adverse conditions of 17 confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the 18 Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, improper inmate appeals 19 process, violation of equal protection, conspiracy, verbal threats, and state law claims. 20 The court screened the First Amended Complaint and found that it states cognizable 21 claims against Defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining Hall Officer Paez, and Culinary 22 Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz, and Moosebaur for violation of 23 RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of 24 confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In addition, the court finds that Plaintiff 25 states a cognizable claim against Defendant Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., for failure to protect 26 Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendant Moosebaur for retaliation 27 in violation of the First Amendment, but fails to state any other cognizable claims against any of 28 the Defendants. (ECF No. 16.) On July 13, 2021, the court issued a screening order requiring 1 Plaintiff to either (1) file a Second Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing 2 to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (Id.) 3 On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with 4 the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 20.) 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s cognizable claims in the First Amended 7 Complaint against Defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining Hall Officer 8 Paez, and Culinary Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz, 9 and Moosebaur for violation of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free 10 Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 11 Amendment; against Defendant Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., for failure to protect 12 Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendant Moosebaur 13 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 14 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 15 3. Plaintiff’s claims for improper inmate appeals process, violation of equal 16 protection, conspiracy, and verbal threats be dismissed from this action based on 17 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 18 4. Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed from this action without prejudice based 19 on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 20 5. Defendants Valley State Prison, CDCR, John Doe #1 (Headquarter Community 21 Resource Manager), John Doe #2 (Associate Director of the Division of Adult 22 Institutions), John Doe #3 (CDCR Departmental Food Administrator), J. Knight 23 (Appeals Examiner), T. Thornton (Appeals Analyst, VSP), Timothy Anderson 24 (inmate), John Doe #4 (inmate), Keene (Housing Unit Officer), Avila-Gonzalez 25 (Correctional Officer), Sergeant Clements, Sergeant Santoya, C. Hernandez 26 (Food Manager), Mohktar (Food Manager), and Hayman (Culinary Supervisor 27 Cook II), be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any 28 claims against them upon which relief may be granted; and 1 6. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 2 including initiation of service of process. 3 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 5 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 6 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 7 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 8 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 9 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: August 27, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28