Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894-16/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MING CHING JIN, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

C. RODRIGUEZ, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-5894 REC/LJO P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs.

40, 63 & 101), GRANTING

LEAVE TO DEFENDANTS TO FILE

A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

REMANDING ACTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS. 

On January 26, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion for summary

judgment and that the court grant in part and deny in part

defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Defendants timely filed objections to the recommendation. 

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record herein de novo. Except as

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 109 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 7
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

2

otherwise specifically discussed herein, the court concurs with

the recommendation. 

Defendants assert in their objections to the recommendation

that the Magistrate Judge “failed to consider the well-settled

rule from Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997), that a

prisoner cannot bring a § 1983 action for damages and declaratory

relief challenging the procedures used in a disciplinary

proceeding until any finding of guilt has been reversed or

declared invalid.” 

Because defendants did not move for summary judgment on this

ground, the Magistrate Judge cannot be faulted for failing to

consider an issue not raised by the defendants. The court will

not consider a ground raised for the first time in objections to

a recommendation. Although the court could conclude that

defendants waived this issue by failing to raise it to the

Magistrate Judge, the court will not do so here given the

potentially dispositive nature of this ground for summary

judgment. Nonetheless, the court concludes that the issue cannot

be resolved at this juncture because plaintiff will not have had

an adequate opportunity to respond. The court will allow

defendants to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment on

the ground that plaintiff’s claims are barred by Edwards v.

Balisok.

Defendants further contend that the Magistrate Judge erred

by agreeing with plaintiff’s contention that defendant Rodriguez

was ineligible to hear the disciplinary charge brought against

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 109 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

plaintiff by defendant Aguirre. 

However, plaintiff submitted eyewitness evidence raising a

question of fact that defendant Rodriguez was present during the

pruno (alcohol) sweep. Therefore, defendants’ objection to the

recommendation on this ground is without merit.

Defendants contend that the Magistrate Judge erred in

denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground that

plaintiff submitted evidence sufficient to raise a question of

fact that the officers found alcohol in 7 out of the 100 cells

searched but only plaintiff was written up for it. 

Plaintiff submitted the declaration of inmate Everett in

support of his motion for summary judgment and in opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants objected in

their opposition to consideration of inmate Everett’s declaration

for lack of foundation. However, inmate Everett was an

eyewitness to the cell searches. Defendants failed to elaborate

the basis for their foundational objection. Given inmate

Everett’s status as an eyewitness and absent any elaboration by

defendants for their foundational objection, defendants have not

demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge erred by considering

plaintiff’s evidence. Furthermore, even if defendants are

correct that inmate Everett’s declaration is inadmissible,

defendants would not be entitled to summary judgment. It is the

dispute over whether there was alcohol in plaintiff’s cell and

whether he was disciplined accordingly or whether the alcohol was

planted so that plaintiff could be disciplined in retaliation for

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 109 Filed 03/15/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

the exercise of First Amendment rights that precludes summary

judgment for defendants on this claim. Whether or not alcohol

was found in other cells and those inmates not disciplined are

not dispositive of this claim. 

Defendants further object to the recommendation on the

ground that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying summary

judgment for defendant Quinn-Robicheaux based on the Magistrate

Judge’s review of 15 Cal.Code Regs. § 3173.1. In the

recommendation, the Magistrate Judge stated:

Further, defendants contend that section

3173.1 gives them discretion to preclude

plaintiff for all visitation with minors and

represent that section 3173.1 states,

‘”Inmates may be prohibited from having

contact or non-contact visits [with minors]

where substantial evidence [e.g., ...

probation officer reports ...) of misconduct

described in section 3177(b)(1) exists, with

or without criminal conviction ... The court

has reviewed section 3173.1 in its entirety

and can find no section in the regulation

that states what defendants assert it states,

and defendants have advanced no argument that

the regulation’s language was different in

2003, when the incident occurred. 

In their objections, defendants note that Section 3173.1 was

amended on December 5, 2005. Under the version of Section 3173.1

in effect after December 5, 2005, the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation is a correct statement of the law. However,

defendants contend, the version of Section 3173.1 in effect at

the time the alleged incident occurred and when the defendants

filed their motion for summary judgment, supports summary

judgment for defendant Quinn-Robicheaux.

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 109 Filed 03/15/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

The court concurs with defendants that Section 3173.1, as in

effect at the time of the alleged incident, compels summary

judgment for defendant Quinn-Robicheaux. With the benefit of the

regulatory language in effect at the relevant time, it is now

clear that defendant Quinn-Robicheaux had the discretion to

prohibit plaintiff from all visitations with minors. Plaintiff

was convicted of two counts of child endangerment, and his

probation report indicated that plaintiff committed violent

crimes in the presence of his children and placed his children in

danger by keeping loaded weapons and high explosives in his house

(F&R, Undisputed Facts 15 & 16, pp. 16-17). Thus, pursuant to

the applicable regulations, there existed information upon which

to base a discretionary decision to preclude plaintiff from

visitation. Courts must “‘afford appropriate deference and

flexibility’ to prison officials in the evaluation of proffered

legitimate penological reasons for conduct alleged to be

retaliatory.” Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9 Cir. th

1995)(quoting Sandlin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995)). The

burden is on the inmate to demonstrate “that there were no

legitimate correctional purposes motivating the actions he

complains of.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808. Plaintiff’s assertion

that defendant Quinn-Robicheaux abused her discretion and his

disagreement with some of the information in the probation report

are insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary

judgment on this claim. Given the regulation in effect at the

time and the existence of the probation report, plaintiff has not

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 109 Filed 03/15/06 Page 5 of 7
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

The court notes that the confusion caused by the revision to 1

the regulation could have been avoided had defendants provided a

copy of the applicable regulatory language to the Magistrate Judge

or notified the Magistrate Judge of the revision while the motions

for summary judgment were under submission. 

6

met his burden of demonstrating that defendant Quinn-Robicheaux’s

action was not motivated by any legitimate correctional purpose. 

Accordingly, defendant Quinn-Robicheaux is entitled to summary

adjudication on this claim.1

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in

part and denied in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendants

Aguirre and Rodriguez is denied;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary

adjudication on plaintiff’s retaliation claim

against defendants Vargas and QuinnRobicheaux based on the July 9, 2003

visitation restrictions is granted;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary

adjudication on plaintiff’s retaliation claim

against defendant Quinn-Robicheaux based on

the October 22, 2003 visitation restrictions

is granted;

d. Defendants’ motion for summary

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 109 Filed 03/15/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

adjudication on plaintiff’s retaliation

claims against defendants Aguirre and

Rodriguez on the ground of qualified immunity

is denied; 

e. Defendants are granted leave to file a

supplemental motion for summary judgment

based on the application of Edwards v.

Balisok; and 

f. The action is remanded to the Magistrate

Judge to be set for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 109 Filed 03/15/06 Page 7 of 7