(PC) Hester v. Clendenin et al, No. 1:2020cv01569 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/20/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

(PC) Hester v. Clendenin et al Doc. 11 Case 1:20-cv-01569-NONE-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM HESTER, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 1:20-cv-01569-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. CLENDENIN, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Doc. No. 9) Plaintiff William Hester is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California 19 Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the 20 meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 21 2000). In the currently operative first amended complaint, plaintiff names Stephanie Clendenin, 22 Director of State Hospitals, as the sole defendant. (Doc. No. 7.) 23 On June 7, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 24 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s substantive 25 due process and First Amendment claims be allowed to proceed against defendant Clendenin, in 26 her official capacity, with respect to the policy adopted in California Code of Regulations, Title 9, 27 § 4350 precluding patients committed to California state hospitals from possessing 28 communication and internet capable devices. (Doc. No. 9.) The magistrate judge further 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01569-NONE-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 3 1 recommended that plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages against defendant Clendenin in her 2 official capacity be dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and all other claims be 3 dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be 4 granted. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 5 that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 10.) 6 On June 17, 2021, plaintiff filed a statement indicating to the court that he will not be 7 filing an objection to the magistrate judge’s screening order of his first amended complaint. 8 (Doc. No. 10.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 11 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 7, 2021, (Doc. No. 9), are adopted 14 in full; 15 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s substantive due process and First Amendment 16 claims against defendant Stephanie Clendenin, in her official capacity, with respect to 17 the policy adopted in California Code of Regulations, Title 9, § 4350 precluding 18 patients committed to California state hospitals from possessing communication and 19 internet capable devices; 20 3. The claim for monetary damages against defendant Clendenin in her official capacity 21 is dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 Case 1:20-cv-01569-NONE-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 3 4. All other claims and defendants1 are dismissed from this action for failure to state a 1 2 claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3 5. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this 4 5 order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: July 20, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The first amended complaint named Stephanie Clendenin as the sole defendant. (Doc. No. 7 at 2; Doc. No. 9 at 2.) However, the original complaint also named Brandon Price as a defendant. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to dismiss Brandon Price as a defendant from this action. 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.