(PC) Neasman v. Swarthout, et al., No. 2:2013cv02121 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER not adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/18/15. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Neasman v. Swarthout, et al. Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE NEASMAN, 12 No. 2:13-CV-2121-KJM-CMK-P Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GARY SWARTHOUT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. On October 30, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 23 24 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, 25 the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations and refers the matter back to the 26 assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 This action arises from events that allegedly followed a prison riot at California State Prison-Solano on September 20, 2012. Plaintiff alleges 3 On 9/21/12 I was placed in administrative segregation as being involved in a riot between black crips and white supremacy groups issued by D. Kyte, P.R. Chambers, On 9/27/12 a hearing was held by staff members D. Hudnall, (AW), E. Majors, (CCI) E. Collier (Sgt), A. 602 inmate appeal was filed and [re]peatedly rejected by N. Clark, and V. Estrella (appeals coordinators) I had a court deadline of 10/03/12 and was denied access to legal property to meet that deadline which was then denied by the court. I was held in administrative segregation for fifty (50) days. When released from ad seg, a lot of my personal property was missing or taken by staff and was refused to replace the property. 4 5 6 7 8 9 ECF No. 1 at 3 (verbatim). Plaintiff also alleges he was found not guilty of the rules violation 10 charge on October 22, 2012 and released back to a Level II facility on November 8, 2012. ECF 11 No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff claims that certain defendants violated his rights under the Eighth 12 Amendment, while other defendants discriminated against him on the basis of race. ECF No. 1 at 13 9. Plaintiff also claims violations of his right to due process and to court access. 14 The findings and recommendations construe the complaint as containing due 15 process claims based on the fifty day placement in administrative segregation, denial of witnesses 16 at a hearing, and loss of property. ECF No. 11 at 4. Based on that construction of the complaint, 17 the magistrate judge concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable due process claim and 18 recommends dismissal of the action without leave to amend and with prejudice. The findings and 19 recommendations do not address plaintiff’s claims of race discrimination or interference with 20 access to the courts. While the court agrees that plaintiff has not stated a cognizable due process 21 claim in connection with his initial placement in administrative segregation, it is not clear whether 22 plaintiff had any Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment protection against retention in punitive 23 segregation after he was found not guilty of the disciplinary charges.1 24 For the foregoing reasons, this matter will be referred back to the assigned 25 magistrate judge for further screening of the original complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 26 ///// 27 28 1 Plaintiff alleges he was placed in “punitive segregation” on September 22, 2012. ECF No. 1 at 7. 2 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 30, 2014, are not 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 3 4 adopted; and 5 proceedings consistent with this order. 6 DATED: August 18, 2015. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.
