Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00161/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00161-1/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 - 08cv00161-H (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON,

CDCR #J-71342

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 08-0161 H (BLM)

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CLAIMS

AGAINST DEFENDANTS BALL,

BOURLAND, CORREA, JANDA,

NELSON, OCHOA,

O’SHAUGHNESSY, PRICE,

SALGADO, TILTON

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST

DEFENDANTS ARVIZU,

CATLETT, GARRETT, JOHNSON,

NORIEGA, and WIDMANN

vs.

T. CATLETT, Sergeant; GARRETT,

Correctional Officer; W.J. PRICE, Facility

Captain; M.E. BOURLAND, Chief Deputy

Warden; DIRECTOR/SECRETARY OF

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION; R.

JOHNSON, Lieutenant; T. OCHOA Chief

Deputy Warden; WHIDMAN, Correctional

Officer; R. NELSON, Lieutenant; G.J.

JANDA, Assoc. Warden; D. NORIEGA,

L.V.N.; J.M. SALGADO, R.N.; M.

CORREA, Supervising R.N. II; K. BALL,

Chief Physician/Surgeon;

V. O’SHAUGHNESSY, Appeal Examiner,

Defendants.

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation submitted by the Magistrate Court

on December 12, 2008, and the subsequent Objections filed by the Plaintiff on December 18, 2008.

Having considered both, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as follows:

Judicial Notice:

This Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ requests for judicial notice.

Case 3:08-cv-00161-H-BLM Document 54 Filed 02/25/09 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

- 2 - 08cv00161-H (BLM)

Count 1

a. Eighth Amendment Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendants BOURLAND, PRICE and TILTON.

This Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendants ARVIZU, CATLETT and GARRETT.

b. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Claims against

ARVIZU, BOURLAND, CATLETT, GARRETT, PRICE and TILTON.

c. ADA and RA Claims

i) Defendants in their Individual Capacities

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”)

and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) Claims against ARVIZU, BOURLAND, CATLETT, GARRETT,

PRICE and TILTON in their INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES.

ii) Defendants in their Official Capacities

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against

Defendants BOURLAND, PRICE and TILTON in their OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.

This Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against Defendants

ARVIZU, CATLETT and GARRETT in their OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.

Count 2

a. Eighth Amendment Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendants OCHOA and TILTON.

This Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendants CATLETT, and JOHNSON.

b. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Claims against

Defendants CATLETT, JOHNSON, OCHOA and TILTON.

Case 3:08-cv-00161-H-BLM Document 54 Filed 02/25/09 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

- 3 - 08cv00161-H (BLM)

c. ADA and RA Claims

i) Defendants in their Individual Capacities

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against

Defendants CATLETT, JOHNSON, OCHOA and TILTON in their INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES.

ii) Defendants in their Official Capacities

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against

Defendants OCHOA and TILTON in their OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.

This Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against Defendants

CATLETT and JOHNSON in their OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.

Count 3

a. Eighth Amendment Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendants JANDA and NELSON.

This Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendant WIDMANN.

b. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Claims against

Defendants JANDA, NELSON and WIDMANN.

c. ADA and RA Claims

i) Defendants in their Individual Capacities

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against

Defendants JANDA, NELSON and WIDMANN in their INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES..

ii) Defendants in their Official Capacities

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against

Defendants JANDA and NELSON in their OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.

This Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and RA Claims against Defendant

WIDMANN in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY.

Case 3:08-cv-00161-H-BLM Document 54 Filed 02/25/09 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

- 4 - 08cv00161-H (BLM)

Count 4

a. Eighth Amendment Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendants BALL, CORREA, O’SHAUGHNESSY, SALGADO and TILTON.

This Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against

Defendant NORIEGA.

b. First Amendment Claims

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment Claims against

Defendants BALL, CORREA, O’SHAUGHNESSY, NORIEGA, SALGADO and TILTON.

Plaintiff’s Official Capacity Claims and Requests for Injunctive and Declaratory Action

a. Official Capacity Claims

With the exception of the ADA and RA Claims against Defendants ARVIZU, CATLETT,

GARRETT and JOHNSON outlined above, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

monetary claims against all Defendants in their OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.

b. Injunctive and Declaratory Action

This Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for injunctive and declaratory

relief against ALL DEFENDANTS.

Conclusion

As it does not appear reasonable that the Plaintiff can cure deficiencies in this pleading

through the allegation of additional facts, this Court exercises its judicial discretion and

DECLINES to grant LEAVE TO AMEND the complaint at this time. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000). To the extent that this Order contradicts the Report and

Recommendation, the Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00161-H-BLM Document 54 Filed 02/25/09 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

- 5 - 08cv00161-H (BLM)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the remaining Defendants Arvizu, CATLETT,

GARRETT, JOHNSON, NORIEGA, WIDMANN will file their answers with the Court within

THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2009

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-00161-H-BLM Document 54 Filed 02/25/09 Page 5 of 5