Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02202/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02202-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUGUSTUS NELSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2202-GPC-WVG

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

REMANDING

vs.

ARMAND FAVILA, DOUG

DEGEUS, M. GARCIA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, Augustus Nelson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

a Second Amended Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No.

11, “SAC.”) Defendants A. Favila, M. Garcia, and D. Degeus (“Defendants”) filed a

Motion to Dismiss, and a Wyatt Notice pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F3d. 1108,

1119 (9th Cir. 2003). (Dkt. No. 21.) On August 7, 2012, the Court provided Plaintiff

with a Notice pursuant to Wyatt. (Dkt. No. 22.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the

Honorable William V. Gallo, United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a report and

recommendation (“Report”) to this Court recommending the Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss be granted, and SAC be dismissed without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 31.) 

Objections to the Report were due by December14, 2012, but neither party filed

objections. 

Upon review of the matter, the Court discovered that Plaintiff had previously 

filed a habeas petition in Nelson v. Clark, 10CV1047-IEG MDD, 2011 WL 3740352

- 1 - 11cv2202-GPC-WVG

Case 3:11-cv-02202-GPC-WVG Document 32 Filed 07/24/13 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

(S.D. Cal. July 15, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, 10-CV-1047-IEGMDD,

2011 WL 3739149 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011). Thus, after careful consideration of the

pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth

below, this Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the magistrate judge’s analysis. The

matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Gallo to set a briefing schedule and

determine whether the case should be dismissed under res judicata based upon the

judgment entered in Nelson v. Clark.

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff Augustus Nelson is currently serving a life sentence after conviction for

kidnapping for robbery with use of a deadly weapon. (See Nelson v. Clark, Civil No.

10-cv-1047, Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2.) He was a state prisoner at Centinela State Prison at

the time of the events giving rise to the action herein and currently resides at the

California Men’s Colony. (SAC at 1; Dkt. No. 27; Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, 2

“Pl. Opp.”).

On March 20, 2007, prison authorities issued Plaintiff a California Department

of Corrections 115 Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) for possession of an inmatemanufactured weapon, discovered by a prison securities officer pursuant to a search

conducted on March 15, 2007. (Pl. Opp. at 3; Dkt. No. 22 Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss, “MTD” at 1.) 

On April 13, 2007, a Senior Hearing Officer (“SHO)” found Plaintiff guilty of

possessing an inmate-manufactured weapon at Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing. (SAC

at 3, ¶ 6; MTD at 1.) On May 23, 2007, approximately 40 days later, Plaintiff received

an “Inmate Copy” of the “Findings of Evidence” and “Final Disposition” of that

disciplinary hearing, dated May 21, 2007 (“Inmate Copy”). (SAC at 3, ¶ 8; MTD at

1.) 

 The underlying facts set forth in the Report is adopted in toto, and referenced as if fully set forth herein. This 1

Court provides only a brief procedural background.

All references to the SAC are to the ECF Page Number of Dkt. No. 11. 2

- 2 - 11cv2202-GPC-WVG

Case 3:11-cv-02202-GPC-WVG Document 32 Filed 07/24/13 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

On May 31, 2007, at a hearing to review the findings of the SHO, the

Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”) affirmed the guilty finding for

possession of an inmate-manufactured weapon. (SAC at 15, ¶ 3; MTD at 2.) On June

25, 2007, Plaintiff was provided an Inmate Copy of the ICC’s decision. (SAC at 16,

¶ 19; MTD at 2.) 

On July 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal challenging the original guilty

finding. (MTD at 2.) On July 11, 2007, a prison appeals coordinator “screened out”

Plaintiff’s appeal for being untimely. (Id.; Dkt. 6, Exhibit 4 at 42; “Screening at

Second Level.”) 

On July 22, 2007, Plaintiff resubmitted the appeal. (SAC at 18, ¶ 29; MTD at

2.) On July 24 2007, the prison appeals coordinator again “screened out” and cancelled

the appeal for untimeliness. (SAC at 18, ¶ 30; MTD at 2; Dkt. No. 6, Exhibit 6 at 45;

“Rescreening at Second Level.”) 

On August 8, 2007, Plaintiff submitted his rejected inmate appeal to the Chief

of Inmate Appeals. (SAC at 22, ¶ 42; MTD at 2.) On September 19, 2007, Plaintiff’s

appeal wasrejected based on his failure to receive a second-level appeal decision at the

institutional level. (SAC at 22, ¶ 43; MTD at 2; Dkt. No. 6, Exhibit 7 at 47; “Director’s

Level Review.”) 

On March 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant action before the court, claiming

to have exhausted all available administrative remedies. (SAC.) First, Plaintiff alleges

his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by Defendants’

failure to prove him with an Inmate Copy of the SHO’s findings within five working

days of the decision in accordance with Cal. Code of Regs. 15, art. 5, § 3320(1). (SAC

at 4-7.) Second, Plaintiff alleges he was deprived of his First Amendment right to

redress of grievances when Defendants failed to process his inmate appeals. (SAC at

13-23; MTD at 10-11.) 

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and Failure to State a Claim for Which

- 3 - 11cv2202-GPC-WVG

Case 3:11-cv-02202-GPC-WVG Document 32 Filed 07/24/13 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

Relief May be Granted on August 6, 2012. (Dkt. No. 22.) On October 18, 2012,

Plaintiff field a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No.

29.) On October 25, 2012, Defendants filed a Reply to Response in Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 30.) The magistrate judge’s Report was

filed on November 6, 2012. (Dkt. No. 31.) No objections to the Report were filed by

either party.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district

court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. When no objections are

filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact

and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217

(S.D. Cal. 2001). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a failure

to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to

factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo.” Barilla v. Ervin,

886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

II. Analysis

The Court received no objections to the Report and no request for an extension

of time in which to file any objections. As such, the Court assumes the correctness of

the magistrate judge’s factual findings and adopts them in full. The Court has

conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report and all relevant

papers submitted by both parties. Upon review of the record and filings by Plaintiff,

the Court declinesto adopt the Report and remandsthe case to the magistrate judge for

- 4 - 11cv2202-GPC-WVG

Case 3:11-cv-02202-GPC-WVG Document 32 Filed 07/24/13 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

determination of whether Plaintiff’s previous April 2011 judgment in Nelson v. Clark

precludes judgment in the present case. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the present

action be remanded to the magistrate judge for further review.

DATED: July 24, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - 11cv2202-GPC-WVG

Case 3:11-cv-02202-GPC-WVG Document 32 Filed 07/24/13 Page 5 of 5