(PC) Jackson v. Quick ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, No. 1:19-cv-01591-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 123) 14 JASON QUICK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 18 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of 19 Jackson’s conspiracy and access-to-the-court claims and denied to the extent that it seeks 20 dismissal of Jackson’s legal mail claims. (Doc 123). The parties were permitted twenty-one days 21 to file written objections. (Id. at 18). On October 27, 2022, Defendants filed objections, and on 22 November 7, 2022, Jackson filed objections. (Docs. 126, 127). According to 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 24 carefully reviewed the entire file, including the parties’ objections, the Court finds the findings 25 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court briefly 26 addresses the parties’ objections. 27 Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in so far as a 28 sufficient material dispute exists regarding whether Defendants had opened Jackson’s legal mail 1 in an arbitrary and capricious manner. (Doc. 124 at 2-3.) Defendants argue that one instance of 2 opened legal mail does not meet the standard for arbitrary and capricious. (Id.) However, the 3 magistrate judge did not rely solely on a single piece of mail to reach the conclusion that a 4 material dispute of fact exists. (Doc. 123 at 13-14.) Jackson declared that he received, already 5 open, multiple pieces of mail from his attorneys. (Id.; Doc. 115 at 6.) The declarations of his 6 cellmates further corroborate his allegations. (Doc. 115 at 39, 41.) At the summary judgement 7 stage, it is not the Court’s role to assess the credibility of these statements. See Agosto v. INS, 436 8 U.S. 748, 756 (1978) (“[A] district court generally cannot grant summary judgment based on its 9 assessment of the credibility of the evidence presented.”). The magistrate judge correctly found 10 that the evidence demonstrated a sufficient dispute to deny summary judgment. 11 Turning to Jackson’s objections, he objects to the findings and recommendations in so far 12 as they dismissed his conspiracy and access-to-the-courts claims. (Doc. 127.) Regarding the 13 conspiracy claim, Jackson’s objections primarily focus on restating the allegations made in his 14 complaint and prior briefing. (Id. at 2-8.) The magistrate judge correctly found that Jackson did 15 not allege sufficient facts to support the element of a conspiracy claim which requires the 16 existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights. (Doc. 123 17 at 14-16.) Jackson did not submit any admissible evidence that showed the Defendants had met or 18 otherwise had a shared understanding or plan to interfere with Jackson’s legal mail. (Id.) With his 19 objections, Jackson submitted two new documents in support of his claims, but neither change the 20 outcome. (Doc. 128.) With respect to the hearing transcript, Jackson only included one page of 21 the transcript. (Id. at 3.) The portion highlighted by Jackson, presumably most relevant to his 22 claims, ends mid-sentence and continues onto pages not submitted to the Court. (Id.) The 23 statement that Jackson’s mail “is being monitored” standing alone, and without surrounding 24 context, does not evidence a conspiracy to improperly open Jackson’s legal mail. (Id.) Regarding 25 Jackson’s inmate grievance form, his statements do not contain any allegations that Defendants 26 had a agreement or meeting of the minds about his legal mail. (Id. at 4.) In addition, Jackson 27 repeats his objection that he was unable to interview witnesses and asks the Court to delay 28 judgment. (Doc. 127 at 3.) However, Jackson had ample time to conduct interviews or take 1 || depositions before the expiration of the non-expert discovery deadline on February 4, 2022. (Doc. 2 | 76at5.) 3 With respect to Jackson’s objections to the dismissal of his access-to-the-courts claims, 4 || these objections again fail to plead any injury that occurred as a result of the prison’s alleged 5 | failure to provide him legal materials. (See Doc. 127 at 9-10.) Jackson must show that the alleged 6 || deprivation of the access to the courts negatively impacted or prejudiced him in litigation. Lewis 7 | v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (“[A]n inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply 8 || by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some 9 | theoretical sense.”). 10 Having considered the parties’ objections and finding none have merit, the Court finds 11 | that the magistrate judge did not err in her findings and recommendations. Thus, the Court 12 | ORDERS: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 13, 2022, (Doc. 123), are 14 ADOPTED IN FULL. 15 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 108) is GRANTED in part to 16 the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jackson’s conspiracy and access-to-the-court 17 claims and DENIED in part to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jackson’s legal 18 mail claims. 19 3. This action proceeds only on Jackson’s claims that Defendants Jason Quick, 20 Elizabeth Alvarez, A. Rossette, Lt. Followill, Lisette Lopez, Dominic Ramos, 21 Hermina Marley, and Carmela Prudente violated his First and Sixth Amendment 22 rights regarding his legal mail. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: _ December 30, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28