(PC) Sloan v. Cisneros ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNNY LEE SLOAN, JR., No. 1:21-cv-01477-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING SCREENING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Docs. 22, 23) 14 T. CISNEROS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations related to the 18 screening of the complaint. (Doc. 23). Sloan did not file objections or otherwise, and the 19 undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 24). Later that same day the Court 20 received a filing from Sloan, dated September 22, 2022, requesting an additional 60 days to file 21 objections to the findings and recommendations because Sloan’s prison is on lockdown due to an 22 outbreak of COVID-19. (Doc. 25). On October 26, 2022, the undersigned set aside the order 23 adopting and granted Sloan until December 27, 2022, to file his objections. (Doc. 26). Sloan filed 24 his objections on December 23, 2022. (Doc. 27).1 25 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 27 1 Sloan also filed a petition for writ of mandamus for review by the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 28.) The Ninth Circuit 28 denied Sloan’s petition. (Doc. 30.) 1 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Moreover, Sloan’s 2 objections contain merely conclusory statements without identifying any specific challenge to the 3 magistrate judge’s findings. 4 For example, Sloan contends “[t]here is a clear actual connection between the actions of 5 all named defendants and the deprivation of alleged suffered by Plaintiff.” (Doc. 27 at 2.) Sloan 6 provides no details about the suffering or injuries he experienced and which defendants or which 7 of their actions caused those injuries. (See id.) To the extent Sloan’s objection refers to the 8 magistrate judge’s finding that Sloan failed to show a retaliatory connection between his staff 9 grievance against Defendant Mata and the Rules Violation Report for Disrespect without 10 Potential for Violence/Disruption issued against him two weeks later (Doc. 23 at 14), Sloan fails 11 to allege that the Rules Violation Report issued because of his staff complaint. The first amended 12 complaint states that Sloan filed a staff complaint against Defendant Mata for “unethical 13 behavior” and refusing to answer questions about his wheelchair during a medical visit on 14 October 9, 2020. (Doc. 22 at 6.) Sloan alleges that two weeks later he received a Rules Violation 15 Report drafted by Defendant Martinez which contained a “fabricated version of October 9 16 events.” (Id.) Although a close temporal proximity can implicate a retaliatory motive (Norwood v. 17 Robinson, 2012 WL 6628894, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012), aff’d, 576 F. App’x 666 (9th Cir. 18 2014)), Sloan alleges that Defendant Martinez, not Defendant Mata, drafted the Rules Violation 19 Report. (Doc. 22 at 6.) Sloan did not allege that Defendant Martinez was present or otherwise 20 involved in the October 9, 2020, incidents. Without more, Sloan does not sufficiently plead a 21 connection between Defendant Martinez’s Rules Violation Report and the protected conduct, his 22 staff complaint against Defendant Mata. 23 Sloan’s remaining objections similarly lack specificity to determine which findings he 24 challenges. By way of further example, Sloan argues that the magistrate judge “used the wrong 25 legal standard” constituting “abused of discretion” and unfair prejudice. (Doc. 27 at 2.) Sloan 26 does not identify which legal standard is allegedly incorrect or which standard should have been 27 applied. In its de novo review, the Court found no error in the legal standards applied. Although 28 the Court does not discuss each of Sloan’s conclusory objections, the Court has reviewed them in 1 their entirety and finds they lack merit. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 7, 2022, (Doc. 23), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL. 4 2. This case SHALL proceed on Sloan’s Eighth Amendment claims against 5 Defendants Talley, Mata, and Gonzales for deliberate indifference to his serious 6 medical needs. 7 3. To the extent Sloan brings Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims 8 against any other defendant based on allegations that he was not provided with a 9 new wheelchair, these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 10 4. Sloan’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants G. Martinez, 11 Gibson, Rhoads, Ramos, Metts, R. Martinez, and Mata based on allegations that 12 they retaliated against Sloan because Sloan filed 602s/grievances against 13 Defendants Talley and Mata are DISMISSED with prejudice. 14 5. Sloan’s Fourteenth Amendment claim based on allegations that Sloan did not 15 receive due process during the disciplinary hearing conducted by Defendant R. 16 Martinez on the Rules Violation Report for Disrespect without Potential for 17 Violence/Disruption that was drafted by Defendant G. Martinez DISMISSED 18 with prejudice. 19 6. Sloan’s claims based on the processing of the 602s/grievances that he filed against 20 Defendants Talley and Mata are DISMISSED with prejudice. 21 7. Sloan’s claim against Defendant Talley based on allegations that funds were 22 unlawfully deducted from his account is DISMISSED with prejudice. 23 8. Sloan’s second, third, fourth, and fifth claims are DISMISSED without prejudice 24 as unrelated. 25 9. Claim six is DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent it is based on: Sloan’s 26 allegations that he was not provided with a new wheelchair; Sloan’s allegations 27 that he was retaliated against because he filed 602s/grievances against Defendants 28 Talley and Mata; Sloan’s allegations that he did not receive due process during the 1 disciplinary hearing conducted by Defendant R. Martinez on the Rules Violation 2 Report for Disrespect without Potential for Violence/Disruption that was drafted 3 by Defendant G. Martinez; Sloan’s allegations that the 602s/grievances that he 4 filed against Defendants Talley and Mata were not properly processed; and Sloan’s 5 allegations that Defendant Talley caused funds to be deducted unlawfully from his 6 account. 7 10. Claim six is DISMISSED without prejudice as unrelated, to the extent it is based 8 on any other conduct. 9 11. Sloan’s state law claims against Defendants Talley, Gonzales, Mata, G. Martinez, 10 Metts, and R. Martinez are DISMISSED with prejudice. 11 12. Sloan’s state law claims against Defendants Gibson, Rhoads, and Ramos are 12 DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent the claims are based on the allegation 13 that they retaliated against Sloan because Sloan filed 602s/grievances against 14 Defendants Talley and Defendant Mata. 15 13. All other state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as unrelated. 16 14. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of all defendants on the 17 Court’s docket, except Defendants Talley, Mata, and Gonzales. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _February 6, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28