Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01753/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01753-6/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAADHI ABDUL COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRED FOULK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1753 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On October 17, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo

review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court adopts the findings and 

recommendations in part. 

 Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that his claim against defendant 

Davis is not properly joined in this action. The objection is well-taken. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 20(a)(2) provides in relevant part that “[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as 

defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the 

Case 2:13-cv-01753-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 06/02/15 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

alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will 

arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Here, plaintiff claims interference with his right to 

access the courts through acts and omissions by mailroom and law library staff at High Desert 

State Prison.1 He asserts a right to relief against defendant Davis as well as other named 

defendants based on a series of events involving both the prison mailroom and the law library, 

and the asserted right presents a question of law common to all defendants. Plaintiff has stated a 

cognizable claim for relief against defendant Davis, and finds defendant Davis properly joined in 

this action. 

 Plaintiff seeks clarification of the status of his retaliation claim against defendants 

Swartz, Arnwald, Hanned, Tenya and Davis. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable retaliation claim 

against defendant Davis. The First Amended Complaint does not, however, include sufficient 

factual allegations to support a claim that defendants Swartz, Arnwald, Hanned or Tenya took 

some adverse action against plaintiff because he exercised a right protected by the First 

Amendment.2

 

 Plaintiff also seeks clarification of the status of the state law claims pleaded in his 

complaint. In this civil rights action “pendent state law tort claims . . . are barred unless 

[plaintiff]” complied with the requirements of California’s Tort Claims Act prior to filing this 

action. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). 

///// 

///// 

 

1

 Plaintiff also alleges unconstitutional policies implemented by prison administrators and that 

their acquiescence in the events he complains of contributed to the alleged violation of his 

constitutional rights, but he does not object to the recommended dismissal of the two warden 

defendants. 

2

 It is not clear to the court that plaintiff could not cure the deficiencies in his retaliation claim 

against defendants Swartz, Arnwald, Hanned or Tenya by amendment. At this juncture, however, 

the court will not delay this action further by dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave 

to amend, given that plaintiff could still seek leave to amend after defendants have appeared in 

this action, if he is able subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01753-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 06/02/15 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

Plaintiff has failed to plead that he presented his claims in accordance with the requirements of 

state law and the claims are therefore subject to dismissal.3 

 Finally, plaintiff objects to the recommended dismissal of defendants Hale and 

Nelson, contending the magistrate judge has misconstrued the nature of his claims against these 

two defendants. This objection is well-taken. Plaintiff has adequately alleged that defendants 

Hale and Nelson obstructed his efforts to obtain relief from the alleged ongoing interference with 

his right to access the courts by improperly screening out his grievances, refusing to file the 

grievances, and delivering them to staff who would then allegedly retaliate against plaintiff based 

on the unfiled grievances. Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for relief against defendants 

Hale and Nelson. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 17, 2014, are adopted in part; 

 2. Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Ron 

Barnes, and Fred Foulk are dismissed; and 

 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order. 

DATED: June 1, 2015. 

 

3

 Again, it is not clear that this defect could not be cured by amendment but the action will not be 

delayed further at this time. See note 2 supra. 

Case 2:13-cv-01753-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 3