(PC) Hernandez v. Thomas, No. 2:2017cv01803 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/4/2018 ADOPTING 32 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 12 Motion to Dismiss, Defendant shall file an answer to plaintiff's complaint within 30 days of the date of this order; and this matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Hernandez v. Thomas Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-CV-1803-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER THOMAS, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On August 31, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein (Doc. 32). Timely objections to the findings and 23 recommendations have been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court 26 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 In his objections, defendant contends the Magistrate Judge misstated the law. The 28 Magistrate Judge cited Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987), and Keenan v. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), for the proposition that, generally, allegations of verbal 2 harassment do not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment unless it is alleged that the 3 harassment was “calculated to . . . cause [the prisoner] psychological damage.” Defendant’s 4 objection is technically correct in that the quoted language appears in Keenan but not in 5 Oltarzewski. Keenan, however, cites Oltarzewski in support of the quoted language. The 6 Magistrate Judge’s citation error does not change the substantive analysis, with which the court 7 agrees. 8 9 Defendant also objects on the basis plaintiff has not affirmatively alleged defendant’s conduct was calculated to cause psychological damage. The court rejects this 10 argument because, as the Magistrate Judge noted, plaintiff alleged defendant Thomas is a prison 11 psychologist and the alleged conduct occurred during a therapy session. It is reasonable to infer 12 from these allegations by a pro se defendant Thomas acted for the purpose of inflicting 13 psychological damage beyond whatever mental impairments for which plaintiff was already being 14 treated. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. 17 The findings and recommendations filed August 31, 2018 (Doc. 32), are adopted in full, except as to the citation error noted herein; 18 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is denied; 19 3. Defendant shall file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days of 20 21 the date of this order; and 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 22 pretrial proceedings. 23 DATED: October 4, 2018. 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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.