Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01113/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01113-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1113 DFL JFM P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On October 12, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis except for the qualified immunity

analysis. In this case, the constitutional right in question is not clearly established such that it

would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation. The cases

Case 2:03-cv-01113-JAM -JFM Document 72 Filed 03/29/06 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

 Plaintiff’s argument that the policy stated in the July 27, 2001 memo was not a valid 1

rule is not persuasive. In the September 12, 2001 memo, Runnels’ stated that prison officers

should continue to feed prisoners, even if they fail to remove window coverings. However, he

instructed staff to notify their supervisors who would evaluate the situation and could order cell

extraction if necessary. This clarification of prison policy does not retroactively invalidate the

rule issued in the July 27, 2001 memo. 

2

cited by the magistrate judge do not address this situation. In those cases, the actions taken

against the prisoner were more egregious. 

This case is similar to Rodriquez v. Briley, 403 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. 2005). See also

Freeman v. Berge, _ F.3d _, No. 05-2820, 2006 WL 722142, at *1 (7th Cir. Mar. 23, 2006)

(finding that “there is a difference between using food deprivation as a punishment and

establishing a reasonable condition to the receipt of food”). Defendant Cole did not restrict

plaintiff’s access to food as a punishment. Instead, plaintiff could have received his meals if he

complied with the prison rules to remove the window coverings. Although Warden Runnels

issued a clarification memo stating that prisoners should not be deprived of meals because of

failing to remove window coverings, this memo was not released until September 12, 2001. All

1

but two of the incidents that plaintiff complains of occurred before Warden Runnels issued this

memo. In addition, plaintiff fails to allege that he did not receive an adequate dinner on the days

when Cole did not provide him breakfast and lunch. Therefore, the court finds that Cole is

entitled to qualified immunity.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01113-JAM -JFM Document 72 Filed 03/29/06 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

3

Accordingly, the court:

1. Adopts the October 12, 2005 findings and recommendations in part; 

2. GRANTS defendants’ May 10, 2005 motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s shower claim;

3. GRANTS Defendants’ May 10, 2005 motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Runnels and defendant Runnels is dismissed from this action;

4. GRANTS defendants’ May 10, 2005 motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Cole; and 

5. Orders the case closed. 

DATED: 28 March 2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01113-JAM -JFM Document 72 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 3