Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01084-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYCHAEL TYRONE SHANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART AND 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. Nos. 78, 83)

Plaintiff Mychael Tyrone Shannon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action brought 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 302.

On February 21, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint (Doc. No. 78) be granted and that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. 

(Doc. No. 83.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had failed to 

sufficiently allege supervisory liability on the part of defendant Diaz, that all the named 

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that the action should therefore be dismissed 

without leave to amend. (Id. at 4–10.)

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 84 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 3
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

Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 10.) No 

party has filed any objections, and the time to do so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

undersigned will adopt the pending findings and recommendations, in part. For the reasons 

explained below, the undersigned will decline to adopt the recommendation that the action be 

dismissed without leave to amend. As to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim seeking damages, the 

undersigned will adopt the recommendations that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity 

and that the claim must be dismissed to the extent that plaintiff seeks damages.1

In plaintiff’s operative third amended complaint (“TAC”), he alleges that defendants 

permit female inmates to purchase and own alarm clocks but deny male inmates the opportunity 

to do so in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Doc. 

No. 66 at ¶¶ 6–17.) Plaintiff expressly seeks injunctive relief requiring defendants to permit both 

male and female inmates to purchase alarm clocks. (Id. at ¶¶ 18–20, 24.) The pending findings 

and recommendations do not address plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. See Demers v. 

Austin, 746 F.3d 402, 417 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Qualified immunity of course does not preclude 

injunctive relief.”). In their pending motion to dismiss, defendants argue that “this court should 

avoid the constitutional question and proceed directly to prong two of the qualified immunity 

analysis, which is whether defendants violated clearly established law.” (Doc. No. 78-1 at 9.) 

Because injunctive relief here requires consideration of the constitutional question, i.e., whether 

defendants’ alleged refusal to allow male inmates to purchase alarm clocks is gender 

discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, defendants have not challenged 

plaintiff’s § 1983 claim to the extent plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.2 The court will therefore 

1

 Because the undersigned will adopt the recommendations in this regard, the undersigned will 

not consider defendants’ remaining arguments as to why plaintiff’s § 1983 claim seeking 

damages must be dismissed.

2

 Nor have defendants provided any argument as to why plaintiff’s § 1983 claim seeking 

injunctive relief should be dismissed.

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 84 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

decline to adopt the recommendation that the entire action be dismissed without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

1. The pending findings and recommendations issued on February 21, 2024 (Doc. 

No. 83) are adopted in part, as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. 

No. 78) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

i. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 claim seeking 

damages is granted;

ii. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 claim seeking 

injunctive relief is denied;

2. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 84 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 3