(PC)Hammler v. Diaz et al, No. 2:2020cv01890 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 10/28/21 DENYING 18 Motion to expedite this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the amended complaint's first amendment r etaliation claims against defendants Matta, Dunn and Navarro. All other claims be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. If these recommendations are adopted, the matter be referred back to me to initiate service on defendants Matta, Dunn and Navarro. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:20-cv-01890-JDP (PC) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE ECF No. 18 R. DIAZ, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MATTA, DUNN, AND NAVARRO PROCEED AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 18 ECF No. 13 19 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 20 21 22 I previously screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and advised him that it contains 23 claims that, because they are unrelated, cannot proceed in a single action. I notified him that he 24 could either file an amended complaint including only related claims or stand by the amended 25 complaint, subject to dismissal of the complaint or parties. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff has elected to 26 stand by the amended complaint. ECF No. 17. Instead of dismissing the amended complaint in 27 its entirety, I recommend that plaintiff be permitted to proceed on his First Amendment retaliation 28 1 1 claim against defendants Matta, Dunn, and Navarro, and that his remaining claims be dismissed 2 without prejudice.1 3 4 Screening and Pleading Requirements A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to expedite this case. ECF No. 18. In light of my recommendation that this case proceed on his claims against defendants Matta, Dunn, and Navarro, that motion is denied as moot. 2 1 2 Analysis Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at California State Prison Sacramento 3 (“CSPS”), he witnessed a murder carried out by a prison gang. ECF No. 13 at 5-6. In varying 4 ways, this murder underlies plaintiff’s numerous claims. I will not describe each of these claims, 5 but will list a few examples: (1) defendant Cerda endangered plaintiff by telling another inmate 6 that plaintiff had spoken to prison staff about the murder; (2) defendants Voong and Diaz were 7 deliberately indifferent in failing to respond to grievances that claimed CSPS staff was covering 8 up the murder in order to protect the officers who aided and abetted the murder; (3) defendant 9 Burnes, a correctional officer who was allegedly involved in the murder, threatened to have 10 plaintiff killed; and (4) defendants Matta, Dunn, and Navarro declined to implement additional 11 security measures to protect plaintiff from the prison gang and staff members who had threatened 12 him; instead, Matta orchestrated a retaliatory transfer to Tehachapi State Prison, where plaintiff 13 would face a greater risk of being killed by members of the prison gang. 14 These allegations, while tangentially related to the witnessed murder, are based on discrete 15 sets of facts, each of which concerns only some defendants. As plaintiff was previously notified, his 16 unrelated claims cannot be litigated together. ECF No. 14 at 3; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (allowing 17 a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in one action where “any right to relief is asserted against them 18 jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, 19 occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all 20 defendants will arise in the action”). 21 Instead of recommending dismissal, I find that plaintiff should be allowed to proceed on 22 his First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Matta, Dunn, and Navarro. I 23 recommend that all other claims be dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff may bring them, 24 if he so wishes, in separate actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court 25 may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”). 26 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s motion to expedite this case, ECF No. 18, is denied as moot. 28 3 1 2 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 3 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the amended complaint’s First Amendment 5 retaliation claims against defendants Matta, Dunn, and Navarro. 6 2. All other claims be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. 7 3. If these recommendations are adopted, the matter be referred back to me to initiate 8 service on defendants Matta, Dunn, and Navarro. 9 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 10 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 11 these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Any 12 such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 14 recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 19 October 28, 2021 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.