Downs v. Jiminez

Summary

This document is an order and findings and recommendations from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning a prisoner’s second amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law. The court found cognizable claims involving excessive force, failure to protect, failure to train or supervise, medical deliberate indifference, negligence, discrimination, and disciplinary due process, while recommending dismissal without leave to amend of the remaining claims. The court denied appointment of counsel and recommended denying the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot following the plaintiff’s transfer.

Holdings

1. The complaint stated cognizable claims for excessive force, assault and battery, and race-based discrimination against Jiminez, Gonzalez, Tyuen, Bowman, and Humphers, and for failure to protect and negligence against Hood and Stanfield.
2. The complaint stated cognizable failure-to-train or supervise claims against Stanfield, Doe 2, and Doe 3.
3. The complaint stated cognizable deliberate-indifference claims against Bergado, Curtis, and Tyler; negligence claims against Curtis; and professional-negligence claims against Bergado and Tyler.
4. The complaint stated a due-process claim against Houghland because plaintiff alleged that he lost good-time credits and was denied the opportunity to call a witness and present video evidence and was not given a written explanation of the decision.
5. The allegations concerning falsified disciplinary documentation, administrative segregation, denial of grievances, retaliation, and property damage failed to state claims for relief.
6. Further leave to amend should be denied because amendment would be futile and the lengthy complaint would likely violate Rule 8.
7. Appointment of counsel was denied, and denial of the temporary restraining order was recommended as moot after plaintiff’s transfer to another prison.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated cognizable claims under § 1983 and state tort law.
2. Whether the allegations stated claims for excessive force, failure to protect, failure to train or supervise, equal protection, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, negligence, professional negligence, assault, battery, and disciplinary due process violations.
3. Whether the allegations stated viable claims based on falsified disciplinary documentation, administrative segregation, denial of grievances, retaliation, and property damage.
4. Whether further leave to amend should be denied as futile.
5. Whether plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and a temporary restraining order should be granted.

Disposition

other