Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00088-12/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

DYLAN DUNN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. CASTRO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-0088-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 40)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (#21 & #38)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action 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 72-302.

On February 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and a Recommendation that recommended Defendants motion to

dismiss be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served

on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within fifteen (15)

days. On March 12, 2008, Defendants filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-00088-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 03/21/08 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

In the complaint, Plaintiff contends that prison officials

are interfering with his right to a relationship with his

children by denying visitation with the children. When in prison,

"[a]n inmate does not retain rights inconsistent with proper

incarceration," and "freedom of association is among the rights

least compatible with incarceration." Overton v. Bazzetta, 539

U.S. 126, 131 (2003). “Some curtailment of that freedom must be

expected in the prison context." Id. It is settled law that

prisoners have no absolute right to unfettered visitation. 

Kentucky Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989);

Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9 Cir. 1996). Prisoners TH

also have no right to contact visitation. Barnett v. Centoni, 31

F.3d 813, 817 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

In this action, Plaintiff is not contesting Defendant’s

general restrictions on visitation. Rather, Plaintiff is

contending that he has been prohibited from visits with his minor

children. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s

inability to visit with his children implicates the fundamental

interest a parent has in maintaining a relationship with his

child. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 685 (9 Cir. th

2001).

However, a parent’s incarceration places substantial

restrictions on his rights of association, even with his own

Case 1:06-cv-00088-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 03/21/08 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

family. Overton, 539 U.S. at 131. The court recognizes that it 

must accord substantial deference to the professional judgment of

prison administrators and in doing so must evaluate the

regulation limiting Plaintiff’s access to his children under the

"reasonableness" test set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,

89-91 (1987). These factors require the court to determine (a)

whether the rule has a rational connection to a legitimate

governmental interest; (2) whether alternative means are open to

the inmate to exercise the right; (3) what impact an

accommodation would have on guards, other inmates, prison

resources and the safety of visitors; and (4) whether there are

alternatives. See Overton, 539 U.S. at 132; Turner, 482 U.S. at

89-91.

The current motion before the court is one brought pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6). In ruling on this motion, the court may only

look to the complaint. Based on only the complaint’s

allegations alone, the court would likely find the Turner factors

tilting in Plaintiff’s favor because this court is bound to the

pleadings and must accept them as true. As explained by the

Magistrate Judge, it would be improper at this stage to define

disputed facts and dispose of unmeritorious claims. While a

full application of the Turner facts may result in a judgment in

Defendants’ favor once all facts are before the court, such a

finding would be premature. This case cannot be resolved without

turning to facts outside the pleadings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 26,

2008, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

Case 1:06-cv-00088-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 03/21/08 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

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00088-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 03/21/08 Page 4 of 4