Carroll v. California Department of Corrections

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ABONILICO CARROLL, Case No. 19-cv-02126-BAS-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 RECOMMENDATION CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (ECF No. 23) 14 CORRECTIONS, et al., AND 15 Defendants. (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 16 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 17 DISMISS (ECF No. 16) 18 Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this action on 19 June 8, 2020, seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages for an alleged violation of 20 his civil rights alleging a violation of constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 (ECF No. 20.)1 Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 22 Correctional Facility (“RJD”), Defendants denied and delayed medical treatment and 23 accommodations in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges 24 that, when he returned to RJD in a wheelchair after reconstructive surgery, correctional 25 officers C. Wright and S. Miller failed to take measures to ensure his health and safety by 26 forcing Plaintiff to walk up a flight of stairs and returning him immediately to general 27 28 1 population rather than housing him on a lower tier or in an infirmary. (FAC at 5–6.) The 2 next day, Plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs and lost consciousness, requiring 3 hospitalization and causing him headaches, shoulder pain, and other effects. (Id. at 6–7.) 4 Plaintiff adds the Warden and Chief Medical Officer of RJD as named defendants in his 5 FAC. 6 Before the FAC was filed, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s original 7 Complaint (“Motion”) for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion on June 15, 2020. 9 (ECF No. 21.) Defendants replied on June 25, 2020. (ECF No. 22.) 10 On September 29, 2020, Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford issued a Report and 11 Recommendation (“R&R”) both screening the FAC sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) and considering the arguments raised in the Motion to Dismiss 13 that applied to the FAC. (ECF No. 23.) The deadline for the parties to object to the R&R 14 was October 23, 2020. (Id. at 12.) Judge Crawford granted Plaintiff an extension to object 15 to November 20, 2020, but denied further extensions. (ECF Nos. 25, 27.) On November 16 20, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that he did not object to the R&R. (ECF No. 28.) 17 Defendants have filed no objections as of this date. 18 The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 20 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The statute makes it 21 clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 22 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 23 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see 24 also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that 25 where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate 26 judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, 27 de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” 28 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit 1 and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of 2 course, de novo review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R 3 & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 4 (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 5 report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 6 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 7 In this case, the deadline to file objections was October 23, 2020. Plaintiff has 8 affirmatively stated that he does not object to the R&R. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants neither 9 filed objections nor requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt 10 the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having 11 conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Court concludes that the Judge Crawford’s 12 reasoning is sound and agrees with the R&R’s recommendation. The Magistrate Judge 13 properly dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit seeking money damages from Wright and Miller 14 in their official capacities pursuant to their Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Bair v. 15 Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1983). Further, the Magistrate Judge correctly 16 determined that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege state constitutional claims against the 17 Chief Medical Officer or Warden, Plaintiff did not request injunctive relief, and Plaintiff 18 sufficiently pled exhaustion of administrative remedies. 19 Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R 20 (ECF No. 23) and ORDERS the following: 21 (1) The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all 22 Defendants is GRANTED, and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and 23 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 24 (2) The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it seeks 25 dismissal of claims for injunctive relief; 26 (3) The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of 27 plaintiff’s claims for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies; 28 (4) Plaintiff’s allegations against RJD’s Chief Medical Officer are DISMISSED 1 || sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim; 2 (5) Plaintiffs allegations against RJD’s Warden are DISMISSED sua sponte 3 |/under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim; and 4 (6) Plaintiff is GRANTED until December 23, 2020 to amend his claims against 5 ||RJD’s Warden and Chief Medical Officer. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 J - 3 fl 8 || DATED: November 23, 2020 Cif Ld Hishasa 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -A-