Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00875/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00875-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, Jr., 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv00875-LAB (BGS)

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

R. BLAHNIK, et al.,

Defendants.

The Court's order adopting Magistrate Judge Skomal's report and recommendation

(Docket no. 26) included a scrivener's error. Pursuant to leave granted by the Ninth Circuit

(Docket no. 34), the clerk is DIRECTED to replace it with this document and to remove

clerk's judgment (Docket no. 27) from the docket. These modifications don't alter the Court's

order revoking in forma pauperis status for appeal. (Docket no. 32.)

Judge Skomal issued his report and recommendation (R & R) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636 on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr.'s state law claims,

recommending that the Defendants' motion be granted. 

I. Background

Garcia is a prisoner incarcerated at R. J. Donovan Prison. (Docket no. 1.) He

proceeds pro se in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.) He alleges

causes of action against various prison officials for: (1) retaliation in violation of the First

Amendment (id. at 5); (2) denying his right to equal protection under the California State

- 1 - 14cv00875

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 06/22/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

Constitution, Article I, § 7 (id. at 22.); and (3) violation of the California Code of Regulations

Title 15, §§ 3084.1(d), 3160(a), 3141(a), and Penal Code 2600. (Id. at 19–22.)

After determining that Garcia never filed the required Government Claim, Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss his state law claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Docket

no. 20.) Garcia didn't file an opposition. Judge Skomal issued an R & R recommending this

Court grant the Defendants' motion since the record adequately supported Garcia's failure

to properly file a Government Claim with the Victims' Compensation and Government Claims

Board (VCGCB) as required by California law. (Docket no. 21.) Garcia then filed his objection

to the R & R. (Docket no. 25.) 

II. Legal Standard

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district judge "may accept,

reject, or modify the recommended decision" on a dispositive matter prepared by a

magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." § 636(b)(1);

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("The

statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise."). 

III. Discussion

The R & R discusses the factual and procedural history of this case. It's repeated

here only as necessary to respond to Garcia's objections.

Garcia broadly objects to the R & R and asks the Court to only consider the facts and

causes of action as they are alleged in the original complaint and ignore the R & R's and

Defendants' restatement of them. (Docket no. 20 at 3). He makes only four specific

objections. First, Garcia objects to the R & R's presentation of the case, stating that "[b]y any

comparement [sic] made it becomes obvious that the Magistrate and Defendants have

omitted/mis-represented Plaintiff [sic] actual claims to the Court." (Docket no. 25 at 3, 7–9.)

- 2 - 14cv00875

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 06/22/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

Second, he objects to the R & R's finding that failure to allege compliance with the

Government Claims Act or to file a Government Claim with the VCGCB supports the

Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Id. at 4, 18–20.) Third, Garcia objects to the R & R's 

recitation that, under the Civil Local Rules, his failure to respond to the motion to dismiss may

constitute consent to grant the motion. (Docket no. 25 at 9–13; see also Docket no. 21 at 2

n. 2.) Finally, Garcia objects to the R & R's statement of the controlling legal standard of

review for the Defendants' motion to dismiss, contending it denies him fair consideration by

the Court on the merits of his objections. (Docket no. 25 at 14–17.) 

A. The R & R's Presentation of Alleged Facts and Causes of Action

Garcia objects to the R & R's presentation of the facts and causes of action alleged,

claiming it "misconstrued those actual facts presented by the operative complaint in support

of those causes of action made against Defendants, and/or falsely attributes statements of

fact to Plaintiff which fail to be supported by the record." (Docket no. 25 at 7.) 

Specifically, he states that a review of the R & R will show that Judge Skomal

"attributes the following statement of facts to the Plaintiff: '. . . Plaintiff further alleges that

Defendant Blahnik violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution by allowing

prisoner-clerks to copy his legal materials, rather than allowing Plaintiff to make the copies

himself.'" (Docket no. 25 at 7.) He argues the mere fact that this statement is not explicitly

in the original complaint shows the Magistrate's inclination "to attribute falsely statement [sic]

not presented by the operative complaint to Plaintiff" and "to mislead the Court." (Id. at 9.) 

But, this quoted language merely paraphrases Garcia's complaint. (See Docket no.

1 at 22) ("Blahnik by taking possession of plaintiff's legal papers and handing such to Law

Library Inmate Clerk's [sic] to be taken to a secluded and hiden [sic] area to be duplicated

by way of copier machine . . . stand in violation of plaintiff [sic] vested civil right of

confidentially given these papers . . . are protected under Plaintiff's privacy rights . . . ").

More importantly, in the sentence immediately preceding the one Garcia cites, the R & R

succinctly and accurately summarizes all of Garcia's causes of actions as they are presented

in the complaint and includes accurate, full citations to his complaint and the factual

- 3 - 14cv00875

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 06/22/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

allegations therein. The Court finds the R & R's presentation of the facts and the causes of

action is accurate and therefore this objection is without merit.

B. Failure to File a Government Claim with VCGCB

Citing Escamilla v. Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 408 (Cal. Ct. App.

2006), Garcia alleges he presented his claim to the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR), so he wasn't required to file a Government Claim with the VCGCB.

(Docket no. 25 at 5.) 

But, Escamilla is inapposite to this case. There the relevant question was whether

Escamilla's claim was for money damages, or a writ of mandamus for a return of personal

property from a bailee. 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d. at 414–15. If it was a claim for damages, then the

California Tort Claims Act's presentation requirement would have been triggered and

Escamilla would have been required to file a Government Claim with the VCGCB. If he was

instead seeking a writ of mandamus for recovery of his belongings from a bailee, then he

was not seeking damages and therefore the claims presentation requirement would not have

been triggered. Id. Contrary to Garcia's claims, in Escamilla the court found "Escamilla's

petition for writ of habeas corpus should be treated as a petition for writ of mandamus

seeking specific recovery of his personal property or its value, and therefore is not a 'claim

for money or damages' pursuant to § 905.2." Id. at 418 (emphasis added). 

Unlike Escamilla, Garcia does not seek return of personal property from a bailee or

any relief that could reasonably be construed as such. Instead, Garcia requests the Court

grant injunctive relief instructing the prison to keep their law library copier in clear view of

inmates and grant damages of $500,000.00. (Docket no. 1 at 25.) Therefore, Garcia's

objection to the R & R's statement of the legal standard for exhaustion under the California

Tort Claims Act is without merit. 

C. Garcia's Failure to Reply to the Motion to Dismiss

Garcia objects to the R & R's mention that his failure to reply to the original motion to

dismiss may, under the Civil Local Rules, constitute consent to the granting of the motion,

because he is incarcerated and, as a pro se plaintiff, has little access to legal resources to

- 4 - 14cv00875

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 06/22/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

respond in a timely manner. (Docket no. 25 at 9–13). This argument is based on the

unfounded worry that the Court would dismiss the complaint without reviewing the motion to

dismiss or his objection. (Id. at 10.) While Garcia's failure to reply could constitute a consent

to the dismissal "or a request for ruling by the court," the R & R did consider the motion to

dismiss on its merits. The Court has also reviewed the motion to dismiss de novo on the

merits. Thus, this objection is unfounded. 

D. R & R's Standard of Review

Garcia objects to the R & R's representation of the standard of review for failure to

state a claim as so overly narrow that, if the Court were to follow the standard as set forth by

the R & R, it would deny him a fair hearing. (Docket no. 25 at 13–14.) 

With regard to the general principles of law for 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss pro se

claims, the R & R's presentation is substantially similar to Garcia's presentation. In fact, both

presentations of the standard of review cite to several of the same cases on the same points

of law. (Compare Docket no. 21 at 3 with Docket no. 25 at 15–17.) There is one minor

addition that was not mentioned in the R & R's recommendation: Garcia correctly cites

Karim-Panahi for the proposition that the court must provide a pro se plaintiff a statement of

deficiencies before it may dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 839 F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir.

1988). However, the R & R, dismissed Garcia's claim without prejudice. The objection is

without merit. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, Garcia's objections to the R & R are OVERRULED. The Court

ADOPTS the R & R. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Garcia's state law

claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 8, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14cv00875

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 06/22/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5