(PC) Martinez v. Sherman ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODOLFO MARTINEZ, No. 1:21-cv-01319-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 14 SHERMAN, DISMISSAL OF ACTION 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 15) 16 17 Plaintiff Rodolfo Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Stuart Sherman (“Defendant”) for 20 deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement. (Doc. No. 10.) 21 On January 13, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed, with prejudice 23 for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 15.) On 24 January 26, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 25 No. 16.) 26 As Plaintiff’s objections largely reiterate the arguments raised in his first amended 27 complaint, the court finds no basis to overturn the findings and recommendations. In Plaintiff’s 28 1 objections, Plaintiff cited to Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006), to support that he 2 stated a facially plausible claim for deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement against 3 Defendant. However, Jett is distinguishable from Plaintiff’s case in two important respects. 4 Firstly, the court in Jett reviewed a district court’s summary judgment ruling. (Id. at 1096.) 5 Here, the court is screening Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether he failed to state a claim 6 upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 15.) A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 7 is a unique procedural posture in comparison to a motion for summary judgment. (Compare Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.) For example, a motion for summary judgment, 9 unlike a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, does not assume the truthfulness of well- 10 pleaded allegations in the complaint. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.) Secondly, Jett concerned a 11 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim. (Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.) Such a claim is 12 distinct from a deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement claim because a different test 13 is applied for each type of claim. (Compare id. with Farmer v. Brennan, 551 U.S. 825, 834 14 (1970).) Therefore, the court finds Plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive to overturn the findings 15 and recommendations. 16 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 17 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 18 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 19 by proper analysis. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 13, 2022, (Doc. No. 15), are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim upon 5 which relief may be granted; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 8 g | SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ September 2, 2022 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28