(PC) Williams v. Price et al, No. 1:2018cv00102 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING In Part and Declining to Adopt In Part Findings and Recommendations Dismissing Certain Claims in the Second Amended Complaint, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/8/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
(PC) Williams v. Price et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COREY WILLIAMS, 11 Case No. 1:18-cv-00102-LJO-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND DECLINING TO ADOPT IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 13 14 BRANDON PRICE, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 32) 16 17 Plaintiff Corey Williams, a civil detainee, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§1983”). Plaintiff is a patient at Coalinga State 19 Hospital (“CSH”) awaiting a civil commitment hearing pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent 20 Predator Act (“SVPA”), California Welfare & Institutions Code § 6600 et. seq.1 The matter was 21 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 22 302. 23 On September 28, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”) 24 recommending dismissing certain claims in the second amended complaint (“SAC”) for failure to 25 state a claim. ECF Nos. 32. The F&Rs were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 26 1 A sexually violent predator (“SVP”) is an individual previously “convicted of a sexually violent 27 offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually 28 violent criminal behavior.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code. § 6600(a)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. Id. Plaintiff has not filed any 2 objections to date. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has 3 conducted a de novo review of this case. The Court finds that the F&Rs are supported by the record 4 and proper analysis with one exception discussed below. 5 This Court previously issued an order adopting in part and declining to adopt in part F&Rs 6 issued with respect to the first amended complaint. ECF No. 27. In that order, this Court found that 7 there was some confusion concerning the appropriate standard for procedural due process claims in 8 contrast to substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 5-15. The Court 9 found that the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th 10 Cir. 2011), provided the appropriate framework for evaluation of procedural due process claims in 11 the institutional context. ECF No. 27 at 13-15. In Greene, the Ninth Circuit found that where “prison 12 officials enacted a system-wide ban [of typewriters] with no exceptions[,]” procedural due process 13 did not require an individual predeprivation hearing where inmate “was notified of the change in the 14 regulation and given an adequate opportunity to comply with it.” 648 F.3d at 1019. Applying Greene, 15 this Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege he was not given an adequate opportunity to comply 16 with the new regulation (or the implementation memorandum issued by Defendant Price), but 17 granted Plaintiff leave to amend his procedural due process claim to allege such facts. ECF No. 27 18 at 14-15. 19 After the filing of the SAC, the F&Rs found that Plaintiff stated a procedural due process and 20 concluded that “Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Price for implementing a 21 policy that is more restrictive than section 4350.” ECF No. 32 at 13. However, this “more restrictive” 22 discussion is not relevant to a procedural due process claim pursuant to the standard set forth in 23 Greene. 24 Plaintiff’s SAC did not add additional facts to support a procedural due process claim under 25 Greene. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the F&Rs finding that the SAC has stated a 26 procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Plaintiff had the 27 opportunity to amend his complaint to address the shortcomings of his procedural due process claim 28 and failed to do so, the Court dismisses the procedural due process claim without leave to amend. 2 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 2 3 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the F&Rs to be 4 supported by the record and by proper analysis with the one exception outlined above. See ECF No. 5 27. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed September 28, 2018, dismissing certain 7 claims, are ADOPTED IN PART (ECF No. 32); 8 9 2. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Ahlin and Price in their 10 official capacity for Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process condition of 11 confinement claim relating to implementation of the amendments to § 4350; 12 3. The Court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations conclusion that 13 Plaintiff has stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim. Plaintiff 14 had the opportunity to amend this claim and did not add allegations to provide 15 sufficient facts that such a claim has been stated. The procedural due process claim is 16 therefore dismissed without leave to amend. 17 4. The individual capacity claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 18 5. All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 19 6. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of process. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: November 8, 2018 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3