(PC) Johnson v. Frauenheim, et al., No. 1:2018cv01477 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 48 Findings and Recommendations requiring dismissal of certain claims and defendants; ORDERED that this is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/17/2021.(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 LACEDRIC WILLIAM JOHNSON, 5 6 7 8 9 CASE NO. 1:18-cv-01477-AWI-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. FRAUENHEIM, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Doc. No. 48) 10 11 Plaintiff LaCedric William Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 12 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 13 On November 10, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s first-amended 14 complaint and found that Plaintiff stated the following cognizable claims: (1) for excessive force 15 against Defendants Correctional Officer M. Santos, Correctional Officer W. Leon, Correctional 16 Sergeant J. Benavides, Correctional Officer S. Espinoza, Correctional Officer J. Hill, Correctional 17 Officer A. Salas, Correctional Officer G. Luna, Correctional Officer S. Lopez, Correctional 18 Officer C. Kennedy, Correctional Officer J. Bejinez, and Correctional Officer E. Trinidad; (2) for 19 violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion against Defendants 20 Correctional Officer A. Salas, Correctional Officer J. Bejinez, Correctional Officer E. Trinidad, 21 and Correctional Officer S. Deshazo; (3) for unconstitutional conditions of confinement against 22 Defendants Correctional Officer S. Deshazo, Correctional Officer J. Bejinez, Correctional Officer 23 E. Trinidad, and Correctional Sergeant J. Benavides; (4) for deliberate indifference to serious 24 medical needs against Defendants Correctional Officer J. Bejinez, Correctional Officer S. 25 Deshazo, and Correctional Officer E. Trinidad; and (5) for failure to intervene against Defendants 26 Correctional Officer S. Espinoza, Correctional Officer G. Luna, Correctional Officer W. Leon, and 27 Correctional Officer R. Newton. Doc. No. 48 at 13, 15, 25. The magistrate judge further 28 recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed, with prejudice, based on 1 Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 26. The findings and 2 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 3 filed within fourteen days after service. Id. 4 On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, 5 requesting that Defendant R. Hoggard remain to answer and respond to the complaint in regard to 6 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for denial and delay of medical care. Doc. No. 49. In his 7 objections, Plaintiff states in a conclusory fashion that Hoggard “was aware of [Plaintiff’s] serious 8 injuries on two occassions [sic], at 0945 when he brought the gurney to the building for 9 [Plaintiff’s] use as he lay with approximately 10 cannisters of O.C. pepper spray on his body butt 10 naked and again two hours later prior to being taken to administrative segregation when he 11 prepared the CDCR 7219 minutes before 1200 hours.” Doc. No. 49 at 2. Plaintiff also states that 12 “[t]wo nurses, D. Hall and K. Bradley of the same profession as R. Hoggard were faced with the 13 same set of circumstances and both D. Hall and K. Bradley both made provisions for [Plaintiff] to 14 receive medical treatment. R. Hoggard not only delayed treatment, he denied [Plaintiff] 15 treatment.” Id. 16 As explained in the findings and recommendations, however, the first-amended complaint 17 does not allege facts demonstrating that Defendant Hoggard knew of and disregarded Plaintiff’s 18 physical distress and requests for medical attention. Doc. No. 48 at 23. Despite Plaintiff’s 19 objections, the first-amended complaint states that Defendant Hoggard entered the gym, stopped 20 approximately ten feet away from Plaintiff, wrote something down on a piece of paper, and exited 21 the gym. Doc. No. 47, ¶ 40. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hoggard had a duty to 22 assess Plaintiff and document his injuries and refer him to a physician, but he exited the gym 23 instead. Id., ¶¶ 40–41. Yet, there is no indication in the first-amended complaint or Plaintiff’s 24 conclusory objections that Defendant Hoggard was aware of the amount of pepper spray on 25 Plaintiff’s body or that he knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 28 objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 2 1 record and by proper analysis. 2 3 ORDER 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 48) that were issued on November 10, 2021, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first-amended complaint (Doc. No. 47), 8 which was filed September 27, 2021, against: 9 a. Defendants Santos, Leon, Benavides, Espinoza, Hill, Salas, Luna, Lopez, 10 Kennedy, Bejinez, and Trinidad for excessive force in violation of the 11 Eighth Amendment; 12 b. Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion; 13 14 c. 15 d. 17 e. 19 Defendants Espinoza, Leon, Luna, and Newton for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 3. 21 23 Defendants Bejinez, Deshazo, and Trinidad for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 18 22 Defendants Deshazo, Bejinez, Trinidad, and Benavides for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 16 20 Defendants Salas, Bejinez, Trinidad, and Deshazo for violation of All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and 4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: December 17, 2021 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.