(PC) Salas v. Allison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL SALAS, No. 1:21-cv-00669-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., REFERRING THE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE 15 Defendants. JUDGE 16 (Doc. No. 29, 35) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Rafael Salas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On September 16, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss in this action. (Doc. No. 23 29.) On November 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 35 at 25 13.) 26 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 27 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id.) 28 On December 20, 2021, defendants filed objections. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff did not file 1 objections or respond to defendants’ objections. In their objections, defendants make two 2 arguments. First, defendants argue that the magistrate judge erred in reasoning that “qualified 3 immunity does not apply in cases in which the plaintiff seeks both monetary and non-monetary 4 relief.” (Doc. No. 37 at 5.) Second, defendants argue that the magistrate judge erred in 5 concluding that “Defendants had a Constitutionally-required obligation to help Salas challenge 6 prison administrators’ rulings on two of Salas’ prison grievances.” (Id. at 8.) Defendants contend 7 that “42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide for a cause of action merely because a prison official is 8 allegedly rude, unhelpful, or unprofessional.” (Id. at 9.) 9 As to defendants’ first argument, the court agrees that plaintiff seeks both injunctive relief 10 and monetary damages. (See Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Accordingly, although defendants are not entitled 11 to qualified immunity with regard to any injunctive relief claims, they might be entitled to 12 qualified immunity with regard to plaintiff’s claims for damages. See Clement v. Cal. Dept. of 13 Corrs., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (Noting that the availability of qualified 14 immunity is limited to actions seeking damages against a government official in his individual 15 capacity, but is not available when the only relief sought is injunctive). As such, the court will 16 decline to adopt to findings and recommendations at this time, referring defendants’ motion to 17 dismiss (Doc. No. 29) back to the assigned magistrate for consideration of defendants’ qualified 18 immunity arguments as to plaintiff’s claims seeking the award of damages. 19 As to defendants’ second argument, the court does not find defendants’ contentions to be 20 persuasive. In the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 35) and the prior screening order in 21 this case (Doc. No. 15), the assigned magistrate judge did not conclude that plaintiff’s § 1983 22 claim was based solely on the allegation of rude or unhelpful acts by defendants. Rather, the 23 magistrate judge concluded that––as alleged––defendants’ actions in not assisting plaintiff with 24 his marriage application could potentially lead to a denial of plaintiff’s due process right to marry. 25 (See id. at 10) (“Plaintiff alleged that his marriage application was denied because he was 26 married, that he is not actually married, that he told at least some of the defendants that he is not 27 actually married, and that they are still preventing him from getting married.”). Nevertheless, in 28 order to avoid confusion with respect to the pending motion to dismiss, the court will not adopt 1 | that aspect of the findings and recommendations at this time but will do so upon receipt of the 2 | subsequent findings and recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendants’ 5 | objections, the undersigned declines to adopt the pending findings and recommendations as they 6 | pertain to defendants’ qualified immunity arguments, without evaluating or reaching any 7 | determination as to the analysis therein, at this time. Instead, out of an abundance of caution, the 8 || pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 29) will be referred back to the magistrate judge for further 9 | consideration in light of defendants’ objections for reissuance of findings and recommendations. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on 12 November 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 35); and 13 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 29) is referred back to the assigned 14 magistrate judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations in light of the 15 objections filed by defendants and for further proceedings. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ April 6, 2022 Yole A Lange 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28