Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03026/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03026-1/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 

16cv03026 JAH-BGS 

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 

MICHAEL LEE RHUDY, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

C/O MELENDEZ, IMPERIAL COUNTY 

JAIL, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16cv03026 JAH-BGS 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. Nos. 12, 17] 

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff, Michael Lee Rhudy, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 

on December 12, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff 

alleges Defendant, C/O Melendez, violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and 

unusual punishment by placing Plaintiff on the “brick diet” for nine days. Complaint at 3. 

 On August 22, 2017, Defendants Imperial County Jail and Melendez filed the 

pending motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, Plaintiff fails to 

sufficiently allege a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Defendant is entitled to 

qualified immunity. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on October 3, 2017, and 

Defendants filed a reply on October 16, 2017. 

Case 3:16-cv-03026-JAH-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv03026 JAH-BGS 

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

 On February 8, 2018, the Honorable Bernard G. Skomal, United States Magistrate 

Judge, issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) addressing the motion and 

recommending this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and grant Plaintiff leave to 

file an amended complaint. Objections to the Report were due by February 27, 2018. 

Neither party filed objections. 

 After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and for the reasons set forth 

below, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and GRANTS Defendants’ 

motions to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard 

 The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court 

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection is 

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The party objecting to the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically setting forth 

which of the magistrate judge’s findings the party contests. See Fed.R.Civ. P. 72(b). It is 

well-settled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court 

may adopt those parts of a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, 

provided they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985). 

II. Analysis 

 Applying the two part test presented in Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 

2009), Judge Skomal determined the allegations of the complaint failed to sufficiently 

allege a serious deprivation that Defendants were aware of and disregarded a serious 

deprivation to support a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against 

cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Skomal also determined Plaintiff failed to allege the 

dates when the event allegedly occurred, and, thereby, failed to provide Defendants fair 

notice to effectively defend themselves. 

Case 3:16-cv-03026-JAH-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv03026 JAH-BGS 

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

 Judge Skomal found Defendants are not entitled to dismissal based on failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies and qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, 

but suggests they not be precluded from asserting these defenses in response to an amended 

pleading or on summary judgment. 

 Based upon Plaintiff’s failure to allege a serious deprivation that Defendants were 

aware of and disregarded, and failure to identify the events specifically enough for 

Defendants to effectively defend themselves, Judge Skomal recommends the motion to 

dismiss be granted. Additionally, Judge Skomal recommends Plaintiff be granted leave to 

file an amended complaint. 

 This Court received no objections to the Report. The Court conducted a de novo 

review, independently reviewing the Report and all relevant papers submitted by both 

parties, and finds the Report provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in the 

motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the Report 

are ADOPTED in their entirety; 

 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED; 

 3. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

 4. If Plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the 

deficiencies outlined by the magistrate judge in the Report, he may do so no later than 

May 4, 2018. 

DATED: March 21, 2018 

 _________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-03026-JAH-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3