(PC) Singanonh v. Rodriguez et al, No. 1:2018cv00590 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/11/2019. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TIENGKHAM SINGANONH, 8 9 10 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-590-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 1 & 17) RODRIGUEZ, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Tiengkham Singanonh (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma 14 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 15 to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 16 On October 29, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 17 recommendations, recommending that “this case proceed on Plaintiff’s claims in his original 18 complaint (ECF No. 1) against Defendants Corporal Rodriguez, Corporal Prei, Correctional 19 Officer Sanchez, and Correctional Officer Esquviel for excessive force and failure to provide 20 medical care, and that all other claims be dismissed with prejudice.” (ECF No. 17, p. 9). 21 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 22 23 recommendations. Plaintiff filed his objections on November 9, 2018. (ECF No. 18). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 24 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 25 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff has alleged that he was a pretrial detainee at the time his constitutional rights were allegedly violated. (ECF No. 14, p. 7). 1 1 2 analysis.2 Plaintiff’s objections—that his “official capacity” claims against Sherrif Mims, Fresno 3 County, and the Fresno County Jail, as well as his “Supervisory Liability” claims, should be 4 reinstated—misconstrue the Magistrate Judge’s finding and recommendations. As the 5 Magistrate Judge informed Plaintiff, his valid claims are for “constitutional violations related to 6 the alleged use of excessive force by officers and subsequent failure to provide medical care— 7 not the failure to provide a shower consistent with jail rules.” See Doc. No. 17 at p. 9. Thus, 8 for the excessive force/medical care claims against “Supervisory personnel” Corporals Prei and 9 Rodriguez, the Magistrate Judge has recommended these claims move forward against these 10 individuals in their individual capacities, and has not recommended dismissal of these parties. 11 As to any “official capacity” claims against persons named as Defendants are essentially claims 12 against the government entity. See Gibson v. U.S., 781 F.2d 1334, 1337-38 (9th Cir. 1986); see 13 also See Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. L.A. Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 533 F.3d 780, 799 (9th 14 Cir. 2008) (naming a government entity and an officer of that entity in an official capacity is a 15 redundancy). To be cognizable, these claims would require allegations that the jail maintains a 16 policy or custom3 as to Plaintiff’s excessive force/medical care claims, not a policy or custom 17 about failing to provide a shower. After multiple correspondence with the Magistrate Judge, 18 Plaintiff stated he wished to rest on his initial complaint, which the Magistrate Judge found 19 (and this Court agrees) failed to state any Monell claim for excessive force and failure to 20 provide medical care. Based on these correspondences, a review of the Complaint, and 21 Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds dismissal with prejudice of any “official capacity” claims 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff stated either a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment or a cruel and unusual punishment claim under the Eighth Amendment. Moving forward, the proper standard for Plaintiff’s claims—as a pretrial detainee—would be under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Olivier v. Baca, 2019 WL 166117, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) (“A pretrial detainee is ‘protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause .... Under the Due Process Clause, detainees have a right against jail conditions or restrictions that amount to punishment. This standard differs significantly from the standard relevant to convicted prisoners, who may be subject to punishment so long as it does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar against cruel and unusual punishment.’”) (quoting Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); see also Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60–61 (2011). 2 1 (those concerning policy or custom per Monell) to be proper. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 2 1132, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1987) (opportunity to amend in pro se cases granted unless it is clear 3 deficiencies cannot be overcome by amendment). 4 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on October 29, 2018, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action may proceed on Plaintiff’s original complaint (ECF No. 1), on 8 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Corporal Rodriguez, Corporal Prei, 9 Correctional Officer Sanchez, and Correctional Officer Esquivel4 for excessive 10 force and failure to provide medical care; 11 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; 12 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of Defendants Fresno 13 County Jail and Margaret Mims on the Court’s docket, and to add Defendants 14 Prei, Sanchez, and Esquivel; and 15 5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2019 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 While the assigned magistrate judge spelled the name as “Esquviel” and “Esquiel,” it appears that the proper spelling is “Esquivel.” 4 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
