(PC) Barrett v. Ciolli ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY BARRETT, No. 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. CIOLLI, (Doc. Nos. 22, 24) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Anthony Curtis Barrett is a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 19 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during an 22 extended lockdown of his prison cell block. (Doc. No. 22.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that 23 prison staff improperly took plaintiff’s property in violation of the Due Process Clause; that 24 prison staff denied plaintiff basic personal hygiene supplies, medical and psychological care, 25 adequate nutrition, and access to the courts for at least one week; and that prison staff failed to 26 protect plaintiff from his cellmate after an altercation, which allowed for a second altercation in 27 which plaintiff’s eye was injured. 28 ///// 1 On September 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 2 recommendations recommending that this action proceed on the following claims: deprivation of 3 property without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment against A. Ciolli, Mr. Scott, 4 Mrs. Rodriguez, Mr. Cobbs, and John/Jane Does 1 through 5, the prison staff assigned to Unit 2A 5 who allegedly participated in the decision to seize plaintiff’s property on March 9, 2020; 6 unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against A. 7 Leger and John/Jane Does 6 through 10, the prison staff who allegedly participated in the 8 deprivation of personal hygiene supplies, exercise, and nutritional food during the week-long 9 lockdown of Unit 2A; and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the 10 Eighth Amendment against C. Hanson, Mr. Young, and John/Jane Does 11 through 15, the prison 11 staff who allegedly deprived plaintiff of his medication, medical care, and psychological care 12 during the week-long lockdown of Unit 2A. (Doc. No. 24.) The assigned magistrate judge 13 further recommended that plaintiff’s First Amendment access to the courts and Eighth 14 Amendment failure to protect claims be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state 15 a claim and that plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Doerer for failure to provide plaintiff with hygiene 16 be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on 17 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 18 days from the date of service. (Id. at 21.) 19 On October 15, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 20 (Doc. No. 32.). It is unclear whether these objections are to the pending findings and 21 recommendations issued upon the screening of plaintiff’s third amended complaint or whether 22 they relate to related findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions for 23 leave to amend be denied. (See Doc. Nos. 25, 26, and 28.) The objections explain that the Eighth 24 Amendment failure to protect claims plaintiff seeks to bring against Mr. Hurte should not be 25 dismissed because Mr. Hurte failed to protect plaintiff from his cellmate based on one prior 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 altercation and the “age difference” between the two inmates. (Doc. No. 32 at 1–2.)1 Plaintiff’s 2 objections, like the third amended complaint, fail to allege that Mr. Hurte or any other prison staff 3 intentionally disregarded a “serious threat” to plaintiff’s safety. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 5 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 6 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 7 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The findings and recommendations entered on September 22, 2021 (Doc. No. 24) 10 are adopted in full; 11 2. This case proceeds on: 12 a. plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim for deprivation of property without due 13 process against A. Ciolli, Mr. Scott, Mrs. Rodriguez, Mr. Cobbs, and 14 John/Jane Does 1 through 5, the prison staff assigned to Unit 2A who allegedly 15 participated in the decision to seize plaintiff’s property on March 9, 2020; 16 b. plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of 17 confinement against A. Leger and John/Jane Does 6 through 10, the prison 18 staff who allegedly participated in the deprivation of personal hygiene 19 supplies, exercise, and nutritional food during the week-long lockdown of Unit 20 2A; 21 c. plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious 22 medical needs against C. Hanson, Mr. Young, and John/Jane Does 11 through 23 15, the prison staff who allegedly deprived plaintiff of his medication, medical 24 care, and psychological care during the week-long lockdown of Unit 2A; 25 ///// 26 27 1 Plaintiff notes that he is 58 years old, while his cellmate is 52 years old. Plaintiff does not explain why this age difference would or should warrant plaintiff being especially protected from 28 his cellmate. 1 3. Plaintiffs First Amendment access to the courts and Eighth Amendment failure to 2 protect claims are dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 3 claim; 4 4. Plaintiff's claims against Mr. Doerer for failure to provide plaintiff with hygiene 5 are dismissed without prejudice; 6 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the Federal Bureau of Prisons and 7 to add Mr. Scott, Mrs. Rodriguez, Mr. Cobbs, A. Leger, C. Hanson, Mr. Young, 8 and John/Jane Does | through 15 as defendants on the docket; and 9 6. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 10 proceedings. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 2 Dated: _ January 6, 2022 Ll A 5 Aan 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28