Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00788/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00788-6/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

15-CV-788 JLS (PCL)

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

MICHAEL HOPKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. BUSTOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-CV-788 JLS (PCL)

ORDER (1) OVERRULING 

OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING 

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; AND (3) 

GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 81)

Presently before the Court are: (1) Defendants Jeffrey Beard1and Daniel Paramo’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ,” ECF No. 63); (2) Magistrate Judge Peter C. 

Lewis’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising that the Court should grant 

Defendants’ MSJ, (ECF No. 81); and Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R, (“R&R Objs.,” 

ECF No. 85). Defendants did not file a reply in opposition to Plaintiff’s Objections. After 

considering the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s

 

1 The Court hereby substitutes the current Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Scott Kernan, for former Secretary Beard on Plaintiff’s official capacity claim. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). However, for ease of reference and to preserve continuity in assessing the 

matters before the Court, the Court considers Plaintiff’s factual allegations against Defendant Beard. 

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 86 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

15-CV-788 JLS (PCL)

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

Objections, (2) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Judge Lewis’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and 

procedural histories underlying the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 1–

9

2

.) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court 

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 

is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In the absence of a timely objection, 

however, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 

record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 

note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ANALYSIS

I. Summary of the R&R Conclusion

On May 4, 2015 Plaintiff filed a Complaint against various defendants for alleged 

violations of his civil rights. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff accuses the moving Defendants 

of violating his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by denying him 

admittance into the Developmentally Disabled Program (“DDP”) which would have 

allegedly enabled him to file grievances against correctionalstaff while he was incarcerated 

at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (Compl. 5–7.) On September 14, 

 

2 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 86 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

15-CV-788 JLS (PCL)

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

2016 Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that (1) neither Beard nor 

Paramo violated Plaintiff’s due process rights, and (2) Plaintiff’s claim is moot. (See 

generally MSJ.)

Judge Lewis concluded that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s due process rights 

and thus recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ MSJ. While Plaintiff argues that 

Defendants denied him access into the DDP, Judge Lewis notes that the evidence shows 

the opposite—that Plaintiff initially failed to test into the program, was still able to file 

grievances, and was eventually placed into the DDP. (R&R 12–13.) Thus, Judge Lewis 

found that there was no liberty interest at stake wherein process was constitutionally due. 

(Id. at 13.) 

II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Objections

Plaintiff’s objections appear to be buried at page 196 of his 213-page filing.3(R&R 

Objs. 196.) Liberally construing Plaintiff’s filing, it appears that he objects to Judge 

Lewis’s apparent failure to consider certain evidence in issuing his R&R. (See, e.g., id. at 

197 (listing the bases for Plaintiff’s Objections).)

III. Court’s Analysis

The Court will review, de novo, each part of Judge Lewis’s R&R to which Plaintiff 

objects.

First, Plaintiff objects to the fact that “Defendants have violated his Due Process 

Rights in multiple violations as alleged in his complaint in which [the R&R] seems not to 

encompas[s] and recognize.” (Id. at 197.) However, Plaintiff does not identify which facts 

in his Complaint were allegedly ignored by Judge Lewis. More fundamentally, however, 

“a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon 

mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that 

 

3 The first several pages of his filing appear to be his account of the events that have thus far transpired 

without any reference to his actual objections, followed by over one hundred pages of exhibits. (See 

generally R&R Objs.)

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 86 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

15-CV-788 JLS (PCL)

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

there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 

(1986). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s first Objection.

Second, Plaintiff similarly objects to Judge Lewis’s alleged failure to discuss these 

violations as set forth in Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (R&R Objs. 197.) As above, Plaintiff fails to identify what facts in 

particular Judge Lewis allegedly failed to consider. Instead, Plaintiff appears to discuss 

general legal principles, (id. at 197–200), asserts in a conclusory fashion that he “clearly 

demonstrates that” his rights were violated, (id. at 200), and then appears to attach a 

verbatim copy of his response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment, (compare id. at 201–08, with ECF No. 76, at 5–12). This is insufficient to 

demonstrate that Judge Lewis failed to consider any particular evidence. See, e.g., Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (“Rule 56(e) therefore requires the nonmoving 

party to . . . designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” 

(emphases added)); S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“A party opposing summary judgment must direct our attention to specific, triable facts. 

General references without page or line numbers are not sufficiently specific.” (citations 

omitted)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (requiring parties to cite to “particular parts of 

materials in the record”).

Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s objection, the record reflects that Judge Lewis 

considered Plaintiff’s allegations in relation to the record evidence. According to Judge 

Lewis:

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Warden Paramo and Secretary Beard 

ignored his developmental disability and did not provide him with adequate 

assistance to file grievances with the prison. Plaintiff argues that because he 

was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial for a short period of time 

before successfully being tried and convicted he should have been considered

developmentally disabled for purposes of receiving prison assistance with 

reading and writing. Defendants have put forth evidence that Plaintiff was 

tested for placement in DDP at the start of his current sentence in 2012 and 

that he did not get a low enough score to be placed in the program. (Doc. 63-

8, at 2, Decl. Pope at ¶ 3.) Starting in March 2014, Plaintiff filed numerous 

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 86 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

15-CV-788 JLS (PCL)

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

administrative appeals regarding his desire to be classified as a DDP inmate 

and eventually received a favorable response from the prison, the record 

shows. (Decl. of Robinson at ¶ 9.) Defendants have shown that Plaintiff was

retested for DDP assistance and given a Clark Adaptive Support Evaluation 

(CASE) at the California Institution for Men on January 27, 2015. (Doc. 63-

5, at 11, Exhibit 4 to Decl. Custodian of Records.) Following this evaluation, 

Defendants have provided evidence that he was placed in the DDP program

at the DD2 level, meaning he may need occasional prompts to initiate or 

complete self-care and daily life activities; he may need adaptive supports and 

additional supervision for appropriate interaction with others, following rules, 

and avoiding social isolation; and he may need help in reading, writing, and

preparing documentation. (Id.; Doc. 63-8, at 12, Exhibit 3.) After Plaintiff was 

designated as a DDP inmate, he has been incarcerated at Donovan from 

February 5, 2015 to February 26, 2015, and then from March 6, 2015 to April 

21, 2015, and then from March 7, 2016 to March 26, 2016. (Doc. 63-8, at 4-

5, Decl. Pope at ¶ 10.) While being held at Donovan during these times, 

Plaintiff has received accommodations in accordance with the Clark Remedial 

Plan including assistance in reading and completing forms and documents, 

such as inmate appeals, Form 22 Requests for Interview, and other documents. 

(Id.) Furthermore, Defendants have put forth evidence that they did not 

interfere with Plaintiff’s access to the inmate appeals process. Since the 

beginning of his incarceration with CDCR on July 15, 2012, Plaintiff has filed 

more than thirty health care appeals. (Doc. 63-9, at 3-4, Decl. Robinson at ¶ 8 

and Exhibit 1.) About half of his health care appeals have been either granted 

or partially granted at different levels of review. (Id.) And Plaintiff has taken 

thirteen of those appeals to the third level of review. (Id.)

(R&R 12–13.)

Based on this evidence, Judge Lewis concluded that Defendants did not violate 

Plaintiff’s due process rights. Specifically, Judge Lewis found that

[f]rom the evidence presented by Defendants, the Court does not detect facts 

that implicate a liberty interest at stake, which is the heart of Plaintiff’s sole 

claim under consideration against Defendants in this motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff alleges that he was prevented from filing inmate appeals

because of his disability in violation of Due Process, but the record shows that 

Plaintiff was able to file administrative appeals sans DDP status through the 

help of other inmates according to Plaintiff’s own admission. (Doc. 80, at 28.) 

With or without help, Plaintiff filed over thirty inmate appeals and took

thirteen of those appeals to the third level of review. (Doc. 63-9, at 3-4, Decl. 

Robinson at ¶ 8 and Exhibit 1.) Although Plaintiff has also put forth evidence 

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 86 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

15-CV-788 JLS (PCL)

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

where he is quoted saying, “Custody retaliated on me for writing 602s,” this 

merely colorable evidence does not flesh out any specific details of an

“atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary 

incidents of prison life”[footnote] that has been caused by the prison’s long 

delay in classifying Plaintiff as an DDP inmate. As Plaintiff has been free to 

file inmate appeals and has been granted what he has requested – DDP status 

– before the filing of this lawsuit, this Court fails to detect a liberty interest at 

stake in where process is constitutionally due. (Doc. 63-8, at 4, Decl. Pope at 

¶ 9; Doc. 63-8, at 30, Exhibit 6.) 

(Id. at 13–14.) Based on the record evidence, the Court agrees with Judge Lewis that “the 

evidence shows that there isn’t a genuine issue of material fact in Plaintiff’s Due Process 

claim, [and thus] Defendants Warden Paramo’s and Secretary of CDCR’s summary 

judgment motion on this sole operative claim in Plaintiff’s complaint should be granted.” 

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s second Objection.

Furthermore, after review of the moving papers and Judge Lewis’s R&R the Court 

finds “that there is no clear error on the face of the record” and thus the Court may “accept 

the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell, 510

F.2d at 206). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lewis’s R&R in its entirety and 

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections, 

(2) ADOPTS Judge Lewis’s R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 86 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6