Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004-6/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 

LARRY SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RALPH DIAZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1004 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On October 19, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The court adopts the findings and 

recommendations in part and declines to adopt the findings and recommendations in part: 

Claim I: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that plaintiff may 

proceed with his first claim under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Standfields, Terry, 

Calderon, and Andrade. See F&Rs at 2, ECF No. 38. 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 3
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 

Claim II: The court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss 

this claim as not arising “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)). Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants 

Fujiwara, Stinson, and Balbasova in this second claim arise out of the same series of occurrences 

as those supporting other claims. He describes a series of physical assaults and other 

mistreatment in retaliation for his requests for mental health care. Compare Second Am. Compl. 

at 5–7, ECF No. 36 with id. at 8–9. The court dismisses the second claim as to the other 

defendants in this claim. The complaint does not include factual allegations supporting a claim 

against these other defendants. See id. at 8–9. 

Claim III: As above, the court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 

to dismiss this claim as not arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of 

transactions or occurrences. Plaintiff may pursue a claim of excessive force against Defendant 

Romney for using painful restraints in response to plaintiff’s requests for mental health treatment. 

See id. at 10–11. The court dismisses the claim against the other defendants listed in his third 

claim. The complaint does not include factual allegations supporting a claim against these other 

defendants. See id.

Claim IV: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss this claim. 

The complaint does not include factual allegations to support plaintiff’s claim that supervisors 

participated in or ignored misconduct by individual officers. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1216–17 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Claim V: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that plaintiff may 

pursue this claim against defendant Bodenhammer. The court dismisses the claim against the 

other defendants listed in his fifth claim. The complaint does not include factual allegations 

supporting a claim against these other defendants. See Second Am. Compl. at 7–8. 

Claim VI: The court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss 

this claim as improperly joined. The court screens and dismisses this claim, however, because it 

does not include factual allegations showing defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical condition, i.e., Hepatitis C. See Second Am. Compl. at 8. At most, his complaint 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 3
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 

might prove negligent medical care. See id. These allegations cannot support a claim under the 

Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A 

showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional 

deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(“A difference of opinion does not amount to a deliberate indifference to . . . serious medical 

needs.”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 19, 2022, are adopted in part as 

explained above; 

 2. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

DATED: January 24, 2023. 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/25/23 Page 3 of 3