(PC) Espinosa v. Kernan ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIA MEDINA, No. 1:19-cv-00345-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., (Doc. No. 19) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Claudia Medina was formerly incarcerated at Central California Women’s 18 Facility, where he alleges he was assaulted by employees of the California Department of 19 Corrections and Rehabilitation. He asserts that during the assault he suffered violations of his 20 Eighth Amendment rights. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 Back on May 3, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended 23 complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that certain claims and 24 defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 19 at 20–21.)1 Specifically, the findings and 25 recommendations recommend that plaintiff’s first claim for relief for excessive force in violation 26 27 1 The court apologizes to the parties for the extensive delay in the issuance of this order. Due to an oversight, until very recently the undersigned was unaware that the May 3, 2019 findings and 28 recommendations were pending in this action. 1 of the Eighth Amendment be dismissed without leave to amend to the extent it is brought by 2 plaintiff against defendant Del Toro and with leave to amend to the extent it is brought against 3 defendant Tegtmeyer. (Id. at 20.) Additionally, the findings and recommendations recommend 4 that plaintiff’s second claim for relief for alleged denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth 5 Amendment be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id. at 21.) The findings and 6 recommendations further recommend that plaintiff’s third claim for relief for alleged sexual abuse 7 and harassment be dismissed without leave to amend and plaintiff’s fourth claim for relief for 8 alleged failure to train be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id.) Lastly, the findings and 9 recommendations recommend that defendants Diaz and Espinoza be dismissed and that 10 defendants Espinoza, Adams, Johnson, Collier, Herrera, Reynolds, Trevino, and Kernan be 11 terminated as defendants. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 12 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. 13 (Id.) On May 17, 2019, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 20.) 14 In his objections, plaintiff makes two arguments. First, plaintiff contends that the 15 magistrate judge’s screening of his complaint was improper because he is represented by counsel. 16 (Id. at 3.) Second, plaintiff contends that he has alleged sufficient facts to support the claims that 17 the findings and recommendations recommend be dismissed. (Id. at 4.) With respect to the first 18 argument, the court concludes that whether plaintiff is represented by counsel is not relevant for 19 this purpose because “[t]he court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking 20 relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, regardless of 21 whether plaintiff is represented by counsel.” Parks v. Rolfing, No. 2:15-cv-1505-CKD-P, 2018 22 WL 2128393, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2018); see also Johnson v. Hall, No. 2:19-cv-1752-KJN-P, 23 2019 WL 4392413, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019). Although at least one judge of this district 24 has found the screening of complaints to be optional when plaintiffs are proceeding with counsel, 25 the court is unaware of any decision barring the screening of a represented prisoner’s complaint. 26 See Simmonds v. CDCR, 49 F. Supp. 3d 700, 701 (E.D. Cal. 2014). With respect to plaintiff’s 27 second argument, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations fully and properly 28 ///// 1 | addressed the arguments raised by plaintiff and correctly found which claims had been adequately 2 | alleged. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 5 | objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 6 | by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 19) are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. Plaintiff's first claim for relief for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 11 Amendment is dismissed without leave to amend to the extent it is brought against 12 officer Del Toro and with leave to amend to the extent it is brought against 13 defendant Tegtmeyer; 14 3. Plaintiff's second claim for relief for denial of medical care in violation of the 15 Eighth Amendment is dismissed without leave to amend; 16 4. Plaintiff's third claim for relief for sexual abuse and harassment in violation of the 17 Eighth Amendment is dismissed without leave to amend; 18 5. Plaintiff's fourth claim for relief for failure to train is dismissed without leave to 19 amend; 20 6. Defendants Diaz and Espinoza are dismissed from this action; 21 7. Defendants Espinoza, Adams, Johnson, Collier, Herrera, Reynolds, Trevino, and 22 Kernan are terminated as defendants in this action; and 23 8. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ November 6, 2021 Vi AL aaa 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28