Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00174/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00174-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv174-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Samuel Edwards, a prisoner in state custody proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional

rights. After two dismissals, Edwards filed his second amended complaint (the “SAC”). 

Defendants then moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The motion

was referred to Magistrate Judge Jan Adler for a report and recommendation.

On February 23, 2016, Judge Adler issued his report and recommendation (the

“R&R”). The R&R ordered that any objections be filed by March 11, 2016. Edwards then

moved for an additional 30 days to file his objections to the R&R. The only reason he gave

for requesting the extension was that he needed it in order to prepare a “thorough and

competent reply” to the R&R. The Court granted the request and ordered Edwards to file

is objections no later than April 8, 2016, but cautioned Edwards that if he needed more time

he must request it, and must explain why he needed it. 

- 1 - 15cv174

Case 3:15-cv-00174-LAB-JMA Document 46 Filed 04/22/16 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

Since then, Edwards has not filed his objections to the R&R, nor any request for more

time, nor anything else.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district

judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection

is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it to be correct, although in need of some

additional explanation.

Edwards’ principal claim is that he was placed in administrative segregation (Ad-Seg)

without receiving the process due him. As the R&R points out, in order to invoke due

process rights, Edwards must first establish he has a liberty interest in avoiding placement

in Ad Seg. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

539, 557–58 (1974). There is ordinarily no liberty interest in avoiding placement in Ad-Seg. 

See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9 Cir. 2003). “ [A]dministrative segregation th

is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point

in their incarceration.” Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983) (abrogated on other

grounds by Sandin, 515 U.S. 472). Edwards has not alleged facts to show he had a

protected liberty interest in avoiding Ad-Seg. While the R&R considers alternative reasons

for dismissal, this is the most compelling.

One of Edwards’ claims is that certain of his personal belongings were taken from him

while he was in Ad-Seg and either lost or damaged. But the SAC shows the state provided

/ / /

- 2 - 15cv174

Case 3:15-cv-00174-LAB-JMA Document 46 Filed 04/22/16 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

post-deprivation remedies, which he attempted to make use of. (SAC at 6, 11.) While 1

temporary confiscation of his property was in accordance with state procedure, its loss or

damage was not. Therefore, all that due process required was a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531–33 (1984), which California

provides. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9 Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code th

§§ 810–895) (“California Law provides an adequate post- deprivation remedy for any

property deprivations.”) 

Finally, the R&R refers in various places to “the record” in this case. (See, e.g., R&R

at 12:16–28.) When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court considers only the pleadings

not evidence. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002).

But the Court may consider documents attached to the complaint, and treat them as part of

the complaint. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555

n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990). That is what the R&R did, and what the Court does: the “record” refers

to documents attached to the SAC, not to extrinsic evidence.

With these additions, the Court finds the R&R to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The

motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the SAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All other

pending motions and requests are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

The SAC alleges he was unsuccessful, in part, because he sought $2 million in total

1

compensation for all his claims, which was beyond what the Board was authorized to award. 

(SAC at 11.) After that, he did not pursue any more claims with the Board. (Id.) 

- 3 - 15cv174

Case 3:15-cv-00174-LAB-JMA Document 46 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 3