Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004-8/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

LARRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-1004 DJC CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief against employees of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 

19, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint as the court is required to do 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found as follows with respect to “CLAIM II” in the second 

amended complaint:

“CLAIM II” is not properly joined. As plaintiff has been informed 

twice before, a plaintiff may bring as many claims as he likes against 

a particular defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). However, claims 

brought against other defendants must arise “out of the same 

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,” as 

a claim against the first defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

Defendants Standfields, Terry, Calderon and Andrade are not named 

in “CLAIM II” and the claims are not sufficiently related to the 

incidents of excessive use of force described above.

Accordingly, the court recommended to the previous district court judge assigned to this case, 

Judge Kimberly Mueller, that “CLAIM II” be dismissed.

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 74 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 4
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

On January 25, 2023, Judge Mueller declined to adopt the court’s findings and 

recommendations as follows:

Claim II: The court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation to dismiss this claim as not arising “out of the same 

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Id.

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)). Plaintiff’s allegations against 

defendants Fujiwara, Stinson, and Balbasova in this second claim 

arise out of the same series of occurrences as those supporting other 

claims. He describes a series of physical assaults and other 

mistreatment in retaliation for his requests for mental health care. 

Compare Second Am. Compl. at 5–7, ECF No. 36 with id. at 8–9. 

The court dismisses the second claim as to the other defendants in 

this claim. The complaint does not include factual allegations 

supporting a claim against these other defendants. See id. at 8–9.

Defendants Fujiwara, Stinson and Balbasova’s answer to “CLAIM II” is due June 22, 

2023. In a document May 4, 2023, these defendants seek clarification as to the portion of Judge 

Muller’s order identified above. Ordinarily, the court would leave that to Judge Mueller, but the 

case was reassigned to Judge Daniel Calabretta before the request for clarification was filed. 

Accordingly, this court will issue findings and recommendations for Judge Calabretta’s 

consideration as to how this matter should proceed on “CLAIM II” in light of Judge Mueller’s 

order and relevant law.

First, defendants ask whether plaintiff states a claim for “retaliation” against defendants 

Fujiwara, Stinson and/or Balbasova. While not entirely clear, the court understands the 

defendants to be asking whether plaintiff states a claim under the First Amendment based upon 

retaliation for protected conduct. Plaintiff asserts that “CLAIM II” arises under the Eighth 

Amendment and makes no mention of the First Amendment. Further, plaintiff does not 

adequately allege that he was subjected to adverse action as a result of conduct protected by the 

First Amendment; plaintiff does not specifically identify protected conduct that led to an adverse 

action by defendant Fujiwara, Stinson or Balbasova. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 

(9th Cir. 2012) (in order to state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must point to facts indicating a 

causal connection between adverse action and protected conduct). 

/////

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 74 Filed 05/10/23 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Next, defendants ask whether plaintiff states a claim for use of excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment against defendant Balbasova who plaintiff alleges is a nurse. Plaintiff 

does not state a claim for excessive force against Balbasova as there is no allegation that she used 

any force against plaintiff. 

Finally, defendants ask that the court clarify Judge Mueller’s use of the phrase “other 

mistreatment” in her order. Instead, the court identifies with more specificity those aspects of 

“CLAIM II” upon which plaintiff may proceed.

1. Plaintiff states a claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against defendant Fujiwara for injuries sustained during the cell extraction occurring on June 17, 

2016.

2. Plaintiff states a claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against defendant Stinson based upon plaintiff’s allegations that Stinson poured feces and urine 

on plaintiff during the cell extraction occurring on June 17, 2016.

3. Plaintiff states claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants 

Balbasova and Fujiwara for denying plaintiff medical care after the cell extraction. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Fujiwara, Stinson and Balbasova’s May 4, 2023, request for clarification be 

granted.

2. Under the heading “CLAIM II,” plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the following 

claims:

A. A claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 

defendant Fujiwara for injuries sustained during the cell extraction on June 17, 

2016.

B. A claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 

defendant Stinson based upon plaintiff’s allegations that Stinson poured feces and 

urine on plaintiff during the cell extraction on June 17, 2016.

C. Claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Balbasova and 

Fujiwara for denying plaintiff medical care after the cell extraction. 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 74 Filed 05/10/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

 3. Any other claims arising under the heading “CLAIM II” against defendants Fujiwara, 

Stinson or Balbasova which have not already been dismissed now be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 10, 2023

1

smit1004.clar

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 74 Filed 05/10/23 Page 4 of 4