Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01156/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01156-6/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 

DWAYNE MONTGOMERY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. CULUM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-1156-KJM-KJN 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 March 28, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. F&R, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff has not 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 

207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 

magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 

///// 

Case 2:22-cv-01156-DC-CSK Document 27 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 2
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 

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

The court writes separately to confirm plaintiff cannot raise a claim based on court orders 

in Coleman v. Newsom, Case No. 90-CV-520-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal). While orders in Coleman

illuminate the requirements of the Eighth Amendment as applied to seriously mentally ill inmates, 

see generally Coleman v. Brown, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2014), the court “cannot create 

or expand constitutional rights,” Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980, 987 (11th Cir. 2003). For 

that reason, Coleman orders do not give rise to an independent cause of action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. As the magistrate judge found, plaintiff’s third claim states a cognizable claim for relief 

under the Eighth Amendment against defendants. The court notes plaintiff’s third claim for relief 

may encompass alleged Eighth Amendment violations based on use of force on mentally ill 

inmates either under the umbrella of, or separate from, the Eighth Amendment requirements for 

adequate mental health care. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 28, 2023, are adopted in full; and 

 2. To the extent plaintiff has raised one or more claims based solely on Coleman v. 

Newsom, Case No. 90-cv-0520 KJM DB P, those claims are dismissed. 

DATED: July 11, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01156-DC-CSK Document 27 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 2