(PC) Alexander v. Munguia ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIAN J. ALEXANDER, No. 2:21-cv-01390-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MUNGUIA, 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 September 7, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. F&R, ECF No. 56. Neither 23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and 2 recommendations as to defendant Officer Munguia. 3 The magistrate judge found plaintiff “merely seeks summary judgment with respect to 4 defendant Munguia for warning plaintiff that pepper spray would be used if he failed to comply 5 with the order to release the food port.” F&R at 9. But plaintiff’s claim against defendant is not 6 so narrow: plaintiff also asserts Officer Munguia stood by and allowed Officer Rodriguez to 7 violate plaintiff’s rights when he pepper-sprayed plaintiff. ECF No. 39 at 11. A supervisor “is 8 liable under § 1983 for a subordinate's constitutional violations ‘if the supervisor participated in 9 or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.’” Maxwell 10 v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 11 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989)). 12 However, for the reasons described by the magistrate judge, F&R at 10, plaintiff’s claim 13 against Officer Munguia is barred by the Heck doctrine, articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 14 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In short, plaintiff’s allegations are at odds with the disciplinary report that 15 resulted in his conviction. Compare ECF No. 14 with Incident Report package at 52, ECF 16 No. 39. Because plaintiff’s “success would necessarily invalid[ate] the result of the disciplinary” 17 report and conviction, plaintiff’s claim is barred. Burton v. Chenoweth, No. 2:14-CV-2331, 18 2015 WL 7758476, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015). Because dismissal under the Heck doctrine is 19 without prejudice, Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1055 (9th Cir. 20 2016), the court declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Officer 21 Munguia with prejudice. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 23 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 7, 2023, are adopted in full. 24 2. Plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39) is denied. 25 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46) is granted. 26 4. Defendants Britton, Rodriguez and Munguia be dismissed from this action without 27 prejudice. 28 ///// 1 5. The Clerk of Court enter judgment as indicated herein. 2 | DATED: October 10, 2023. 3 4 ; CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28