Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00266-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD LYNN WADE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. LILES,

Defendant. 

 /

1:06-cv-00266-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL

SHALL COUNT AS A STRIKE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G)

Plaintiff Gerald Lynn Wade (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 11, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations that recommended this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim. The Findings and Recommendations were

served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any

objection to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

Case 1:06-cv-00266-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

within thirty days. On May 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Objection

to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

The complaint alleges that Defendant Liles’ conduct caused

Plaintiff to loose his liberty interest in rehabilitative and

work programs, less restrict housing, and maintaining credit

earning status. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff

does not have a liberty interest in rehabilitative programs, see

Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1985), less

restrictive housing and personal property allotment, see Sandin

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) and Myron v. Terhune, 476

F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007), or to earn good time credits, see

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 1986).

The court does note that in the complaint, Plaintiff alleges

that: “Plaintiff was also seen by Board of Prison terms in the

most unfavorable light by being in Disciplinary Segregation at

the time of the hearing.” While Plaintiff has a liberty interest

in the receipt of a parole release date, see Sass v. California

Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9 Cir. 2006), the th

complaint fails to allege that Defendant’s conduct caused

Plaintiff to be denied parole. Liability may be imposed on an

individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the plaintiff

can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of

a federally protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634

Case 1:06-cv-00266-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 To the extent Plaintiff is contending that the Board of Prison Terms erred in denying him parole, a 1

challenge to the denial of parole necessarily implicates the validity of the denial of parole and the prisoner's

continued confinement, and as such, is not available in a civil rights claim. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369

F.3d 1091, 1098 -99 (9 Cir. 2004). th

3

(9 Cir.1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 th

(9 Cir.1981). "The inquiry into causation must be th

individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of

each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to

have caused a constitutional deprivation." Leer, 844 F.2d at

633. If a plaintiff fails to allege adequate causation, the

complaint must be dismissed. Marsh v. San Diego County, 432

F.Supp.2d 1035, 1045 (S.D.Cal.2006). Here, the complaint only

alleges that the Board of Prison terms saw Plaintiff in a “most

unfavorable light.” This allegation is insufficient to allege

causation. In addition, to find causation has been sufficiently

alleged, the court must presume that: (1) Without Defendant’s

conduct Plaintiff would not have been found guilty at the

hearing; (2) Without having been found guilty, Plaintiff would

not have been in disciplinary segregation at the time of the

Board of Prison Terms’ review; and (3) The Board of Prison Terms

would have released Plaintiff had Plaintiff not been in

disciplinary segregation. This chain of logic is simply too

speculative to conclude that Defendant’s actions deprived

Plaintiff of his liberty interest in parole. If it is

speculative that an alleged act caused a longer sentence,

causation is not present. See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517,

526-27 (9 Cir. 1996). Thus, Plaintiff’s references to the th

denial of parole in the complaint fails to state a claim.1

Finally, in the objections, Plaintiff contends that he has

Case 1:06-cv-00266-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

alleged an equal protection claim because similarly situated

inmates do not have their Rules Violation Reports illegally

upgraded by staff members and there was no rational basis for

Defendant’s actions other than her disdain for Plaintiff. The

court recognizes that an Equal Protection Clause claim may be

established if a plaintiff alleges that similarly situated

individuals were intentionally treated differently without a

rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. See 

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Squaw

Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th

Cir.2004); SeaRiver Mar. Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d

662, 679 (9 Cir. 2002). However, in the complaint, Plaintiff th

only cites to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments but does not

make the allegations about being treated differently contained in

the objections. A new theory cannot properly be raised in

objections to Findings and Recommendations. Greenhow v.

Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), 

overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d

1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual assertions that could have been but

were not presented to the Magistrate Judge should be given no

consideration when the court is deciding whether to adopt

Findings and Recommendations Sundaram v. County of Santa

Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam System, Inc. v.

Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). 

"[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the

magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and

present a different theory to the district court would frustrate

the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 638. 

Case 1:06-cv-00266-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 08/29/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Thus, the court cannot consider allegations made only in

objections to determine if a complaint states a claim. 

The court is mindful that the court must give a pro se

prisoner plaintiff notice of a complaint’s pleading deficiencies

and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissing a civil rights

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000); th

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987). Here, th

the court is dealing with an amended complaint, and the

Magistrate Judge already dismissed the complaint and gave notice

of the complaint’s pleading deficiencies, including the

requirements for an equal protection claim. Thus, the court

finds dismissal of this action is appropriate without allowing

further leave to amend. Plaintiff is either unable or unwilling

to file a complaint that states a claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 11, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00266-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 08/29/07 Page 5 of 5