Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02711/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02711-11/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

DAVID REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2711 JAM CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This pro se prisoner civil rights action proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”) filed January 25, 2016. (ECF No. 27.) The SAC is before the court for screening. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Having reviewed the pleading and attached documents, the undersigned 

concludes that the SAC does not cure the defects of the First Amended Complaint as discussed in 

the November 23, 2015 screening order. (See ECF No. 23.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Mule Creek State Prison officials failed to protect him after a gangaffiliated inmate hit him in the eye with a rock in August 2012, requiring surgery. When plaintiff

returned from the hospital, he was rehoused in the same yard as his assailant. Plaintiff alleges 

that, after his return, his assailant “was pressuring other inmates to take plaintiff off the yard” and 

“incited” plaintiff’s cellmate to attack him. (ECF No. 27 at 15.) Plaintiff claims defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to his safety, as they “failed to segregate” plaintiff from his attacker and 

other gang members. (Id.)

Case 2:14-cv-02711-JAM-CKD Document 30 Filed 04/01/16 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

2

In December 2012, plaintiff and his cellmate, Vasquez, were issued a Rules Violation 

Report for fighting: “Both inmates exchanged punches with closed hands (fists) at each other’s 

facial area, but it did not appear that either inmate made contact. Inmate Reyes then pushed 

Vasquez onto the ground.” (Id. at 25.) An attached medical report indicates that plaintiff 

sustained no injuries. (Id. at 30.) Plaintiff was convicted of fighting, a term explained in the 

disciplinary hearing report as: “[B]oth participants were committing battery on the other.” (Id. at 

26.) Plaintiff refused to sign a “Peaceful Coexistence Agreement Chrono” with Vasquez and was 

assessed ninety days’ credit loss for the disciplinary conviction. (Id. at 28.). See Wilkinson v. 

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent 

prior invalidation) . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of 

confinement or its duration.”), citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

On the facts alleged, plaintiff has not shown that any defendant was deliberately 

indifferent to his safety under the legal standard set forth in the November 23, 2015 screening 

order. He has alleged neither the subjective frame of mind required for deliberate indifference 

nor any harm stemming from defendants’ alleged indifference. The SAC does not state a failureto-protect claim against any defendant, nor any other cognizable claim. As it appears another 

round of amendment would be futile, the court will recommend dismissal of this action. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

///// 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02711-JAM-CKD Document 30 Filed 04/01/16 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

3

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: March 31, 2016

2 / reye2711.sac

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02711-JAM-CKD Document 30 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 3