Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680-20/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 

NATHAN HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-01680 DJC CKD P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are several motions 

filed by the parties. The court will address each motion in turn. 

I. Procedural History 

The docket in this case has been inundated with so many motions that the court must 

clarify the procedural history of this case before ruling on the pending matters. This case is 

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint docketed on May 10, 2021, asserting an 

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendants Navarro, Medina, 

Ceballos, and the Doe defendant captain who gave the initial order to cuff plaintiff 

in his cell in August 2019 (Claim Two); and an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

defendants Vera, Parra, Mancilla, Gomez, Reyes, the Doe defendant tower guard who opened 

plaintiff’s cell door in November 2019, and the Doe correctional officers who allegedly 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 8
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 

participated in the beating (Claim Four).1 ECF Nos. 54, 72. The remaining claims and 

defendants, including Captain Gallagher, were dismissed with prejudice by order dated April 18, 

2023. ECF No. 72. 

 A review of the docket indicates that the summons for defendants Medina and Gomez 

were returned to the court as unexecuted. ECF No. 79. Therefore, by order dated June 21, 2023, 

the court directed plaintiff to provide additional identifying information for these defendants 

within 30 days in order to affect service of process. ECF No. 80. Plaintiff has not responded to 

this order and defendants Medina and Gomez have not been served with the second amended 

complaint. Therefore, at this juncture, the court will order plaintiff to show cause why defendants 

Medina and Gomez should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice for failing to 

timely serve them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).2

 Plaintiff’s response to this show cause shall be 

filed within 21 days from the date of this order. Absent good cause for failing to serve these 

defendants, the court will recommend dismissal without prejudice of defendants Medina and 

Gomez pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

II. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them in their official capacities on 

grounds that these claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and because state officials 

acting in their official capacities are not “persons” capable of being sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. ECF No. 86. Defendants also seek the dismissal of plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief 

because plaintiff’s claims involve past conduct only and do not involve a specific policy or 

custom at CSP-Corcoran. Id. 

Plaintiff’s opposition argues that the CDCR is a for-profit corporation that uses California 

1

 Defendant Barra has been subsequently identified as “A. Parra” in CDCR’s Notice of Waiver. 

Therefore, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to update the docket of this case by terminating 

defendant Barra from this action. Defendant A. Parra has waived service of process and filed a 

responsive pleading to the second amended complaint. ECF Nos. 77, 83, 86. 

2

 “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or 

on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that 

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, 

the court may extend the time for service if the plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the failure to 

serve process. Id. 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 8
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 

taxpayer dollars to pay its bills and employees. ECF No. 90 at 2. According to plaintiff this 

means that it can’t claim Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id. Plaintiff submits that there is a 

policy and/or practice at CSP-Corcoran, where the alleged Eighth Amendment violations 

occurred, to engage in assaults, deny medical treatment for the injuries, and then cover them up. 

Id. at 3. 

By way of reply, defendants assert that plaintiff’s arguments do not address the core legal 

issues in their motion to dismiss. ECF No. 94. Defendants point out that the CDCR is a state 

agency and not a private corporation. ECF No. 94 at 3. 

III. Legal Standards Governing Motion to Dismiss 

In order to survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Dismissal is proper when the 

complaint does not make out a cognizable legal theory or does not allege sufficient facts to 

support a cognizable legal theory.” Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 

1041 (9th Cir. 2011). 

IV. Analysis 

In this case, plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against defendants in 

their individual and official capacities for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. See ECF No. 

36 at 20 (second amended complaint). “Official-capacity suits ... generally represent only another 

way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. 

Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As 

defendants point out, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by 

private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. 

See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam). 

Plaintiff’s claim that the CDCR is not a stage agency is meritless. See Darden v. California Dept. 

of Corrections, No. EDCV 08-1402-GW (MLG), 2009 WL 291863, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 3 of 8
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 

Moreover, neither a state nor a state official sued in an official capacity for monetary damages is 

a “person” for purposes of a § 1983 damages action. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 

U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Therefore, even if a state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity in 

federal court, Will precludes a claim for monetary damages against the state government entity or 

a state official sued in an official capacity. Id. For these reasons, plaintiff's claims for monetary 

damages against defendants in their official capacity should be dismissed with prejudice. 

With respect to the injunctive relief requested, plaintiff seeks a permanent restraining 

order against defendants based upon the threats to his safety by prison staff as alleged in his 

second amended complaint.3 ECF No. 36 at 20. To the extent that defendants seek dismissal of 

the prospective injunctive relief claims against them in their official capacity, the motion should 

be denied. At this stage of the proceedings, the court must accept all the factual allegations in the 

second amended complaint as true, and must draw any permissible inferences from those facts in 

plaintiff’s favor. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). As construed in the light most favorable to 

plaintiff, plaintiff’s second amended complaint adequately requests prospective injunctive relief 

from defendants in their official capacities. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends denying 

defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground. 

V. Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff filed two separate motions for summary judgment before the court has even 

issued a discovery and scheduling order in this case. ECF Nos. 111-112. Accordingly, the 

motions are premature because the factual record has not been adequately developed. The court 

recommends denying these motions without prejudice to refiling after discovery has closed in this 

case. 

VI. Plaintiff’s Motion to Include Captain Gallagher 

Since defendant Gallagher was dismissed with prejudice by order dated April 18, 2023, 

3

 The court has previously denied plaintiff’s three separate motions for a temporary restraining 

order/preliminary injunction seeking his transfer to federal custody. See ECF Nos. 17, 45, 72. 

The undersigned will not rehash the analysis supporting the court’s prior orders. 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 4 of 8
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 

5 

plaintiff has filed several requests for the court to acknowledge that Captain Gallagher is a 

defendant in this action. See ECF Nos. 87, 98. Plaintiff’s most recent filing is labeled as a 

“motion to include Captain Gallagher as a defendant.” ECF No. 114. As in prior pleadings, this 

motion completely ignores the procedural history of this case. The court has already provided 

plaintiff with the opportunity to clarify what specific actions Captain Gallagher made in order to 

determine whether he is one of the Doe defendants in this action. See ECF No. 99. However, 

plaintiff failed to return the notice to the court as directed. Id. 

In his pending motion, plaintiff does not identify what specific actions Captain Gallagaher 

took that links him to any alleged constitutional violation found cognizable in the court’s 

screening order. Simply labeling him as a defendant in this action is not enough to state a claim 

for relief against Captain Gallagher. The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual 

connection or link between the actions of the defendant and the deprivation alleged to have been 

suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo 

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to 

the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an 

affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). 

The court has provided plaintiff with numerous opportunities to specify whether Captain 

Gallagher is the Doe Defendant identified in Claim Two, even going so far as to create a form for 

plaintiff to complete and return to the court. However, plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s 

order dated September 27, 2023. See ECF No. 99. Therefore, it is recommended that plaintiff’s 

motion to include Captain Gallagher as a defendant in this action be denied. 

VII. Warning Regarding Excessive Filings 

Finally, the record reflects that plaintiff has filed duplicative and voluminous motions that 

prevent the court from addressing the merits of plaintiff’s claims and inevitably slow the 

resolution of this case. See ECF Nos. 23-24, 51-52, 58, 67, 91, 96, 103, 111-113. Plaintiff has 

also filed numerous pleadings captioned as “notices” and “requests” to the court. See ECF Nos. 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 5 of 8
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 

6 

8, 10-13, 20-21, 29, 43, 46, 87, 92, 98, 107, 109-110. Plaintiff is hereby formally cautioned that a 

litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is 

determined that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 

F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). 

This court views the number of motions filed to date as excessive. Therefore, 

plaintiff is limited to filing two additional pleadings until the district judge has ruled on 

these Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff may file: 1) a response to the court’s order 

to show cause why defendants Medina and Gomez have not been timely served; and, 2) 

objections to the Findings and Recommendations on the remaining motions. Any additional 

pleadings from plaintiff filed prior to the district judge’s review of these Findings and 

Recommendations will be: (1) stricken from the docket; (2) not responded to by the court; 

and (3) result in further limitations on plaintiff’s filings for the duration of this case. 

VIII. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 

Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 

the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 

in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 

Defendants Medina and Gomez have not been served with your second amended 

complaint because you did not provide enough identifying information for the U.S. Marshal to 

locate them. The court informed you of this problem on June 21, 2023 and you did not respond. 

You have 21 days to explain why you have not provided sufficient information to serve them or 

the undersigned will recommend dismissing these defendants without prejudice. 

Since the discovery phase of this case has not even started yet, your motions for summary 

judgment are premature. Therefore, it is recommended that they be denied without prejudice to 

refiling after a complete factual record has been developed. 

It is further recommended that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and 

denied in part. This does not end your case. It just limits your claims for monetary damages to 

defendants in their individual capacities. 

If you disagree with any of these recommendations, you have 14 days to explain why it is 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 6 of 8
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 

7 

not the correct result. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case will review the file and make the 

final decision. 

After reading this order carefully, you may file two documents: (1) a response to the 

order to show cause why defendants Medina and Gomez have not been served; and, (2) 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the claims for 

monetary damages against defendants in their official capacity. Any additional pleadings that 

you file pending the district judge’s review of these Findings and Recommendations will be: 

(1) stricken from the docket; (2) not responded to by the court; and (3) result in the 

imposition of further limitations on your filings for the duration of this case. 

CONCLUSION 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to terminate defendant Barra from this 

action as he has been correctly identified as A. Parra. 

 2. PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within 21 days 

from the date of this order why defendants Medina and Gomez should not be dismissed without 

prejudice for failing to timely serve them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 86) be granted in part and denied in part as 

explained herein. 

2. The claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacity be 

dismissed with prejudice. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 111, 112) be denied without 

prejudice as prematurely filed. 

 4. Plaintiff’s motion to include Captain Gallagher as a defendant (ECF No. 114) be 

denied. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 7 of 8
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 

8 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: April 30, 2024 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 115 Filed 05/01/24 Page 8 of 8