Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00068-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR SERVICE 

OF COGNIZABLE MEDICAL 

INDIFFERENCE CLAIMS IN FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS GREAVES, BONDOC, 

PUNT, MADINA, SWINGLE, NEUBARTH, 

COREA, DHAH, and (2) DISMISSING ALL 

OTHER INDIVIDUALLY NAMED 

DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On December 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

that (1) Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel be denied without prejudice, (2) 

Plaintiff should proceed on the FIRST amended complaint Eighth Amendment medical 

indifference claims seeking damages against Defendants Greaves, Bondoc, Punt, Madina, 

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 26 Filed 04/18/14 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

Swingle, Neubarth, Corea and Dhah, and service should be initiated on these Defendants, 

(3) all other claims asserted in the FIRST amended complaint and all other individually 

named Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 21.) On January 23, 

2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 25.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Plaintiff objects on three grounds. First, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge 

failed to analyze, as an excessive force claim, his allegation that prison staff retaliated

against him by labelling him a “snitch.” However, it remains that Plaintiff does not identify 

any application of force linked to the named Defendants. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 36 

(2010); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992). The cases cited in the objection offer 

no support. This objection fails. 

Second, Plaintiff asserts the Magistrate Judge erred in finding deficient his retaliatory 

transfer claim against the Departmental Review Board (“DRB”) Defendants, arguing the 

claim is sufficiently supported by circumstantial evidence. Timing of the events surrounding 

any alleged retaliation may constitute circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent. See Pratt 

v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995). However, Plaintiff merely re-hashes 

allegations that DRB Defendants were motivated by civil rights litigation Plaintiff had filed 

two years earlier against their predecessors, and that these Defendants acted without 

penological purpose. These allegations were considered by the Magistrate Judge and 

found deficient. Plaintiff does not point to any error of law or fact. The retaliation claim 

against the DRB Defendants fails for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge.

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding deficient 

allegations the DRB Defendants’ facility transfer decisions denied him due process. He 

notes that his due process allegations relate to transfer from High Desert State Prison 

(“HDSP”) to Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”), rather than from CSP to HDSP, and the 

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 26 Filed 04/18/14 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

findings and recommendations are so corrected. Nonetheless it remains the allegations are 

insufficient to support a liberty interest in avoiding restricted (SHU) housing at CSP. There 

is no liberty interest in avoiding more adverse conditions of confinement, see Wilkinson v. 

Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005), where, as here, there is no suggestion of atypical and 

significant hardship. Id. at 221-23, citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995); 

see also Rodriguez v. Pearson, 473 Fed.Appx. 728 (9th Cir. 2012). Even if Plaintiff had 

alleged such a liberty interest, he does not identify any procedural rights due, at hearing or 

otherwise that were denied him, for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of law or fact under the findings and 

recommendations for the reasons stated. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on December 13, 

2013 (ECF No. 21), as corrected herein, in full,

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice,

3. This case shall proceed on the FIRST amended complaint Eighth 

Amendment medical indifference claims seeking damages against 

Defendants Greaves, Bondoc, Punt, Madina, Swingle, Neubarth, Corea and 

Dhah,

4. All other claims asserted in the FIRST amended complaint and all other 

individually named Defendants are dismissed with prejudice,

5. Service shall be initiated on the following Defendants:

a. GREAVES, Medical Doctor at Corcoran State Prison,

b. BONDOC, Medical Doctor at Corcoran State Prison,

c. PUNT, Medical Doctor at High Desert State Prison,

d. MADINA, Medical Doctor at High Desert State Prison, 

e. SWINGLE, Medical Doctor at High Desert State Prison,

f. NEUBARTH, Medical Doctor at Corcoran State Prison,

g. COREA, Medical Doctor at Corcoran State Prison,

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 26 Filed 04/18/14 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

h. DHAH, Medical Doctor at Corcoran State Prison, and 

6. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff eight (8) USM-285 forms, eight (8) 

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet 

and a copy of the FIRST amended complaint filed December 20, 2012,

7. Within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption of these findings and 

recommendations, Plaintiff shall complete and return to the Court the notice 

of submission of documents along with the following documents:

a. Completed summons,

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above,

c. Nine (9) copies of the endorsed FIRST amended complaint filed 

December 20, 2012, and 

8. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the 

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 26 Filed 04/18/14 Page 4 of 4