Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469-15/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 

RONALD DEAN YANDELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-00469 DAD AC 

ORDER FINDING SERVICE APPROPRIATE 

AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS REMAINING DEFENDANTS 

 Plaintiff was, at the time of filing, a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned 

by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a third amended 

complaint that is now before the court for screening. ECF No. 54. 

I. Screening Requirement 

As plaintiff was previously advised, the court is required to screen complaints brought by 

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 

prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

///// 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 59 Filed 04/01/24 Page 1 of 6
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 

II. Allegations in the Third Amended Complaint 

At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was a federal 

pretrial detainee held in custody at the Sacramento County Main Jail. The third amended 

complaint challenges various conditions of his confinement at the jail. Plaintiff names the 

Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, Commander Brandon Luke, Assistant Commanders 

McKrasie and Hampton, Sergeants Schaller, Pfau, and Saika, as well as Chaplain Terry Toliver as 

defendants in this action. 

In his first claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that defendants Jones, Luke, Hampton, Saika, 

Pfau, Schaller, and McKrasie violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by 

arbitrarily placing him in the total separation housing unit (“TSEP”) without any notice or a 

hearing. Plaintiff raises a First Amendment violation against defendants Jones, Luke, Schaller, 

and McKraise for failing to provide him with a confidential room for his attorney-client visits 

concerning his pending federal criminal charges.1

 Lastly, plaintiff asserts a First Amendment free 

exercise claim against defendant Toliver for denying him a vegetarian diet that is consistent with 

his Buddhist beliefs. Plaintiff filed numerous grievances concerning these conditions of 

confinement which were denied by defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau. 

III. Legal Standards 

The existence of a prison grievance procedure establishes a procedural right only and 

“does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 

(8th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance 

procedure). This means that a prison official’s action in reviewing an inmate grievance cannot 

serve as a basis for liability under Section 1983. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. “Only persons who 

cause or participate in the violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an 

administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation. A guard who stands and 

watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the Constitution; a guard who rejects an 

1

 It should be pointed out that plaintiff does not allege a separate Sixth Amendment violation as 

part of this claim. 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 59 Filed 04/01/24 Page 2 of 6
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 

administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not.” George v. Smith, 507 

F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 

IV. Analysis 

Upon conducting the required screening, the undersigned finds that the complaint 

sufficiently alleges a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendants Jones, Luke, 

and Saika based on plaintiff’s placement in the TSEP; a First Amendment violation against 

defendants Jones and Luke for failing to provide a confidential attorney-client visitation area; and 

a First Amendment free exercise claim against defendant Toliver for failing to provide plaintiff 

with a vegetarian diet consistent with his Buddhist beliefs. If the allegations of the amended 

complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of these 

claims. Therefore, the court will direct plaintiff to complete the documents required to serve 

defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika with the third amended complaint.2

 

Plaintiff has failed to state a separate claim for relief against defendants McKrasie, 

Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau based solely on their review of his administrative grievances. 

Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Plaintiff does not allege that these defendants personally participated 

in any other violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that 

defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau be dismissed from this action. It is further 

recommended that leave to amend the complaint be denied as it does not appear to the court that 

the defects with respect to these defendants are curable. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. 

Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to 

amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 

V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 

Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 

the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 

in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 

//// 

2

 Defendant Toliver has already been served and entered an appearance in this case. 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 59 Filed 04/01/24 Page 3 of 6
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 

The court has reviewed the allegations in your third amended complaint and determined 

that some state cognizable claims and others do not. The court is ordering service on defendants 

Jones, Luke, Saika, and Toliver. To proceed with the claims against these defendnats, you must 

complete and return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents form within 30 days. 

The undersigned is recommending that defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and 

Pfau be dismissed from this action for failing to state a claim against them. Reviewing the 

administrative grievances that you filed pertaining to your conditions of confinement is not 

sufficient to state a constitutional violation by these defendants. Since this defect is not curable, 

the undersigned is recommending that these defendants be dismissed without leave to amend. 

If you disagree with this recommendation, you may explain why it is not the correct outcome 

within 14 days from the date of this order. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants Jones, Luke, Saika, and Toliver. 

 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms for defendants Jones, 

Luke and Saika, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the third amended complaint 

docketed on December 4, 2023. 

 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 

 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 

 b. One completed summons; 

 c. One completed USM-285 form for defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika; and 

 d. Four copies of the endorsed third amended complaint docketed on December 4, 

2023. 

 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 

//// 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 59 Filed 04/01/24 Page 4 of 6
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 

5 

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and 

Pfau be dismissed from this action without leave to amend for failing to state a claim against 

them. 

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: April 1, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 59 Filed 04/01/24 Page 5 of 6
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 

RONALD DEAN YANDELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION 

 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed 

_____________________: 

 ____ completed summons form 

 ____ completed USM-285 forms 

 ____ copies of the ___________________ 

 Third Amended Complaint 

DATED: 

 ________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 59 Filed 04/01/24 Page 6 of 6