(PC) Chiprez v. Spearman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS CHIPREZ, No. 2:19-cv-0619 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 4, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 35. After receiving an 23 extension of time, ECF No. 37, plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and 24 recommendations, ECF No. 39. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 27 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. With 28 respect to the discussion of claim one in section IV.A. of the findings and recommendations, the 1 | court writes separately to observe that there may be circumstances under which prison officials 2 || have a duty to produce exculpatory evidence in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings, 3 || see, e.g., Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922, 925 (7th Cir. 2002) and Burns v. PA Dept. of Corr., 4 | 642 F.3d 163, 174n.11 (3d Cir. 2011) (cited in Strohmeyer v. Belanger, 2021 WL 1097344 5 || (D.Nev. 2021)). Here, however, plaintiff’s own description of his exchange with Correctional 6 || Officers Bautista and Ziehm that led to the rules violation report, set out in plaintiffs 7 || administrative appeal from the disciplinary conviction, makes speculative at best plaintiff's 8 || assertion that video footage of the incident would have been exculpatory. See ECF No. 1 at 8-10. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 4, 2021, ECF No. 35, as supplemented 11 || by this order, are adopted in full. 12 2. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 13 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 14 | DATED: November 8, 2021. 15 7 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28