Diana Akins, as successor in interest to Samuel Wynn, Jr. v. B. Moss, et al.

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations in a § 1983 action concerning an alleged one-time contamination of inmate food at High Desert State Prison. The magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add retaliation, property-seizure, and ADA claims, and granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court concludes that the alleged single incident is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and that the proposed additional claims are unrelated, noncognizable, or subject to immunity.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend should be denied because the motion was unduly delayed, the proposed claims were not reasonably related to the existing claim, and some proposed claims were legally deficient or futile.
2. The proposed retaliation claims should not be added because they were based on different facts and law from the pending Eighth Amendment claim, and the allegations against unnamed defendants did not show that they knew of Wynn's grievance or litigation.
3. The proposed claim concerning retention of Wynn's personal and legal materials should not be added because an adequate state post-deprivation remedy was available and prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure of their personal property.
4. The proposed ADA claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should not be added because it was unrelated to the existing claim and CDCR was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
5. A single alleged incident of being served food contaminated by chewing tobacco was insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim; defendants were therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a single alleged incident in which an inmate was served food contaminated by chewing tobacco states an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
2. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to add retaliation, property-seizure, and ADA claims.
3. Whether the proposed retaliation claims are unrelated to the existing Eighth Amendment claim and inadequately pleaded.
4. Whether the proposed property-deprivation claim is cognizable under § 1983 despite the availability of state post-deprivation remedies and the absence of a Fourth Amendment right against seizure of a prisoner's personal property.
5. Whether the proposed ADA claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Disposition

other