Cisneros v. Rowland

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends that Matthew Cisneros’s § 1983 action proceed only on his Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against correctional officers Rowland, Marroquin, and Garcia. The document recommends dismissal of the deliberate-indifference, conditions-of-confinement, personal-property, retaliation, and related claims and defendants, and permits objections within thirty days.

Holdings

1. The allegations that Garcia, Rowland, and Marroquin threw Plaintiff to the ground, handcuffed him, and repeatedly punched and kicked him despite his compliance were sufficient at the screening stage to state Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against those three defendants.
2. The complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Alvarado, Patel, or Brown.
3. The allegation that Plaintiff spent approximately one hour in a holding cage without means to clean his wounds did not state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
4. The alleged negligent or intentional loss of Plaintiff's personal property did not state a § 1983 procedural due-process claim because California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy.
5. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because it did not allege facts connecting the property deprivation to Plaintiff's appeal of the use-of-force incident.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against correctional officers Garcia, Rowland, and Marroquin.
2. Whether the allegations stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on delayed or inadequate medical treatment and unsanitary holding-cell conditions.
3. Whether the alleged loss or deprivation of personal property stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. Whether the alleged property deprivation stated a First Amendment retaliation claim.

Disposition

other