Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01441/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01441-9/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

 The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims that 1

defendants failed to follow Title 15 regulations be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 60 at 30.) Plaintiff

argues that he should be permitted to pursue these state law claims inasmuch as he timely filed

his tort claim with the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board. Plaintiff relies on

State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534

(2004) (presentation of a written claim and action on, or rejection of, the claim are conditions

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL STEVE DIXON,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-1441 GEB KJN P

vs.

S. LAROSA, 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 Rule 302.

On August 31, 2011, 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-one days. 

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:10-cv-01441-TLN-KJN Document 73 Filed 12/23/11 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

precedent to suit), and Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.

1995) (same), cited in Chappell v. Newbarth, 2009 WL 1211372, *9 (E.D. Cal. 2009). (Dkt. No.

67 at 10.) However, plaintiff provides no legal authority for the proposition that Title 15 of the

California Code of Regulations, which governs the conduct of prison employees, provides a

cause of action under California State law. Indeed, in Chappell, the court stated: 

The existence of regulations such as these governing the conduct of

prison employees does not necessarily entitle Plaintiff to sue civilly

to enforce the regulations or to sue for damages based on the

violation of the regulations. The Court has found no authority to

support a finding that there is an implied private right of action

under Title 15 and Plaintiff has provided none. Given that the

statutory language does not support an inference that there is a

private right of action, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to

state any cognizable claims upon which relief may be granted

based on the violation of Title 15 regulations. All such claims are

properly dismissed.

Id., at *9.

2

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 entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 31, 2011, are adopted in full;

2. The March 8, 2011 motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 38), based on plaintiff’s failure

to exhaust administrative remedies, filed by defendants Knipp, White, Crosby, Martel,

Thomason, Grzebyk, Texeira, Foston, Harrington and Keenan, is granted;

3. Defendant Wilkins’ April 7, 2011 motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 45), based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, is granted;

4. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by defendants Foston,

Knipp and Thomason is granted;

5. The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants

Foston, Knipp and Thomason is granted;

Case 2:10-cv-01441-TLN-KJN Document 73 Filed 12/23/11 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

6. The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment challenge to the

September 16, 2009 cell search is granted;

7. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims four and five concerning

defendants’ failure to follow state regulations is granted;

8. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Keenan in connection with the September

16, 2009 cell search is dismissed, based on plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable civil rights

claim; and

9. Defendant LaRosa is directed to file an answer within fourteen days.

Dated: December 22, 2011

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-01441-TLN-KJN Document 73 Filed 12/23/11 Page 3 of 3