(PC) Mitchell v. Diaz ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN E. MITCHELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00006-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE SCREENING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 R. DIAZ, et al., (Docs. 24 & 27) 15 Defendants. 16 17 The magistrate judge entered screening findings and recommendations, recommending 18 that the case proceed on Mitchell’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim against Defendant 19 Rodriguez. (Doc. 27 at 14-15). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Mitchell’s claim 20 against Rodriguez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and dismissing his claim 21 against Defendants Stanley and Rodriguez for deprivation of his religious property in violation of 22 his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights for failure to state a claim. (Id.) The magistrate 23 judge recommended that all other claims be dismissed without prejudice because they were 24 unrelated. (Id.) 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, including Plaintiff’s 27 objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the findings and recommendations. 28 Mitchell raises numerous objections. (Doc. 28) Mitchell objects to the finding that his 1 complaint does not sufficiently plead the connection between the protected conduct and adverse 2 action for his retaliation claim. (Doc. 28 at 2.) The magistrate judge found the complaint did not 3 contain facts to suggest that Rodriguez’s withholding of Mitchell’s silver chain and medallion 4 was because of Mitchell having filed a 602 staff complaint against Rodriguez or having filed a 5 motion in his then-pending district court case reporting the conduct. (Doc. 27 at 12-13.) The 6 findings and recommendations note that the complaint contains no allegations suggesting a causal 7 connection and it does not allege Rodriguez was even aware of Mitchell’s complaints. (Id.) 8 Mitchell argues, however, that the “timing and or sequence of events” suggests a causal 9 connection. (Doc. 28 at 2.) 10 According to Mitchell’s amended complaint, on September 28, 2019, Mitchell requested 11 filings from his then-pending district court litigation, which Rodriguez refused to provide. (Doc. 12 24 at 4.) On October 10, 2019, Mitchell submitted a 602 staff complaint against Rodriguez and a 13 motion in his district court case reporting Rodriguez’s failure to provide the district court filings. 14 (Id.) Approximately three weeks later, Rodriguez engaged in the alleged retaliatory conduct by 15 refusing to give Mitchell his religious chain and medallion. (Id.) Mitchell alleges that Rodriguez 16 said “602 it,” when he refused to give Michell his religious property. (Id.) Although timing and 17 sequence of events “can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent,” 18 suspect timing alone does not suffice to plead a retaliation claim when a substantial gap exists 19 between the protected conduct and retaliatory action. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 20 1995); see also Williams v. Botich, 2010 WL 11534578, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2010), R&R 21 adopted, 2010 WL 11537529 (C.D. Cal., Sep. 24, 2010), aff’d, 459 Fed. App’x 620 (9th Cir. 22 2011). However, close temporal proximity may sufficiently imply a causal link. Compare 23 Norwood v. Robinson, 2012 WL 6628894, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012) (finding three weeks 24 between filing a grievance complaint and the confiscation of plaintiff’s property sufficient to infer 25 causation); with Lewis v. Wagner, 2016 WL 11281165, at *8 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) (finding 26 retaliation claim insufficiently pled where plaintiff’s only causal link was that the adverse action 27 occurred “a little more than a month” after his First Amendment conduct). 28 Three weeks passed between Mitchell’s filing of his 602 staff complaint and his motion in 1 the pending district court. The three-week gap somewhat thinly implies a retaliatory connection. 2 On the other hand, Mitchell’s additional allegation that Rodriguez mentioned filing a 602 3 complaint while withholding the religious property adds little. The 602 process is the proper 4 course for an inmate who objects to a correctional officer’s conduct. Referring Mitchell to this 5 process—without any showing Rodriguez was aware of the prior complaint—as evidence of 6 retaliation goes too far. 7 Unlike in Willard v. Sebok, 2014 WL 12966930, at 6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2014), Rodriguez 8 mentioned the 602 procedures rather than mentioning any particular grievance submitted by any 9 inmate. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Mitchell and accepting reasonable factual 10 inferences from his allegations, the Court finds insufficient allegations to plead a First 11 Amendment retaliation claim. 12 Mitchell objects also to the dismissal of claim eight, in which he alleges Defendants 13 Gonzalez and Leyva retaliated against Mitchell by making him remove the word “retaliation” 14 from his staff grievances and complaints, including a complaint against Rodriguez following the 15 withholding of his religious property. (Doc. 28 at 2-3.) The magistrate judge recommended 16 dismissing this claim as unrelated and as improper joinder of parties under Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure 18 and 20. (Doc. 27 at 8-9.) Mitchell objects and argues that the claims are directly 18 related to claim one because Gonzalez and Leyva required Mitchell to remove “retaliation” from 19 the staff complaint against Rodriguez, which resulted from Rodriguez’s alleged deprivation of 20 religious property. (Doc. 28 at 2-3.) Mitchell argues that “claim 8 did not come to fruition without 21 claim one.” (Id.) Rule 20(a) does not permit a plaintiff to join multiple defendants under one 22 complaint unless the claims both arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 23 transactions or occurrences and the claims involve common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 20(a). 25 In light of the Court’s finding above, the allegations of claim eight are not sufficiently 26 related to claim one to permit joinder of the claim and additional defendants. Mitchell’s 27 allegations in claim eight do not arise from a series of occurrences upon which claim one arises. 28 Accordingly: 1 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 9, 2 2022, (Doc. 27), ace ADOPTED IN FULL. 3 2. This case shall proceed on Claim One on the First Amendment Free Exercise 4 claim claim against Defendant Rodriguez. 5 3. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Stanley and Rodriguez for depriving Plaintiff 6 of his religious property in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process 7 rights are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 8 4. All other claims are DISMISSED without prejudice, as unrelated. 9 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of all Defendants currently 10 listed on the Court’s docket, except T. Rodriguez. 11 6. This case is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _ November 7, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28