Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00666-26/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

 The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Salenger and Rohlfing

on Plaintiff’s claims against them. Docket No. 152.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

E. S. ALAMIEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:04-cv-00666-JKS-KJM

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 15, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, which

were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

Plaintiff has enumerated nine objections to the Findings and Recommendations. For the

most part, the objections address a perceived violation or violations of the Americans with

Disabilities Act by prison officials and the Magistrate Judge in this lawsuit by their failure to

make proper accommodations for his low learning level, specifically, his limited ability to read

and comprehend. Others, e.g., numbers (4) and (7), address the claims against defendants

Salenger and Rohlfing, which are not before the Court at this time.1

 There are two issues before

the Court at this juncture. First, the claim against defendant Exum—did the acts of Exum rise to

the level of exhibiting deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition? Second, should

Plaintiff be permitted to proceed against defendants Alamieda, Runnels, Grannis, Dharlingue,

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 182 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 4
ORDER

Ellington v. Alamieda, 2:04-cv-00666-JKS-KJM 2

Felker, Barron, and Sweeten? Plaintiff’s objections do not address any of the findings on either

issue.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, with particular attention to those portions relevant or pertinent to the objections raised, the

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis with respect to the complaint against defendants E. Exum, Alamieda, Runnels, Grannis,

Dharlingue, and Felker. The Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations with respect to

the allegations against defendants Sweeten and Barron are not supported by the record and

proper analysis.

A. Exum.

Accepting as true Plaintiff’s factual allegations and viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that a reasonable trier of fact

could not find that the actions of Exum constitute a deliberate indifference to a serious medical

need. For the most part, Plaintiff does nothing more than disagree with the course of treatment

prescribed by Exum. A claim that, as correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, is not cognizable

in a § 1983 civil rights action. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057–58 (9th Cir. 2004);

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Even accepting as true the unsupported

conclusory allegations of Plaintiff that the course of treatment was inadequate or improper does

not save the day for Plaintiff. At most, Plaintiff establishes a case of medical malpractice, a

claim that also is not cognizable in a § 1983 civil rights action. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

106 (1976).

B. Alamieda, Runnels, Grannis, Dharlingue, Felker, Barron, and Sweeten.

In ¶ 38. (Docket 14, p. 10), Plaintiff alleges:

a) Correctional officers - Grannis, Runnels, the Director of Corrections, Sweeten,

Barron, and Dharligue and Does 1-5, used legitimate security resources to solicit

and employ inmates, Dinnis, Jones, Goodman and Thompson, to beat up plaintiff

for them. See Exhibit (I) CDC 602 Log No. H.D.S.P. B-04-1649 [sic, probably

should be a reference to B-04-1659].

b) Plaintiff is scared on a daily basis that any inmate assigned to cell with him

will be the one to beat or kill him for defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 182 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 4
2

 The Court notes that this declaration contains a typed signature.

3

 The Court notes that this declaration also contains a typed signature.

ORDER

Ellington v. Alamieda, 2:04-cv-00666-JKS-KJM 3

c) Since Plaintiff is unsure of all the staff at H.D.S.P. that are participating in

getting inmates to harm him he believes his overall safety is in danger here at

H.D.S.P. even among the staff.

Plaintiff further alleges in ¶ 50 (Docket 14, p. 16):

50. Defendants Runnels - the Director of Corrections, N. Grannis - Inmate

Appeals Branch, Sweeten, Barron, Dharlingue, Felker, allowing custodial officers

to use inmates to beat and harm other prisoners for the affected inmate’s legal

efforts against custodial staff is a felony, which violates Plaintiff’s Constitutional

Rights, U.S.C.A. 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14; the above staff had CDC 602 Log no.

H.D.S.P. B-04-1659 with declarations from inmates stating the above and Does 1-

5 solicited inmates to beat plaintiff; and did nothing to investigate the allegations,

discipline, or fire all guilty parties; and claiming Plaintiff a Crip gang member to

get him harmed.

Plaintiff also attached as Exhibit I to the complaint a copy of H.D.S.P. B-04-1659

(Docket 14-2, pp. 42 – 57). Included in that document are the declarations of three inmates. In

one, inmate Eugene Jones alleges that, at the time Jones was Plaintiff’s cell-mate, Sweeten

directed him (Jones) to “BEAT HIS ASS ! (Wellington)” (uppercase in original) in exchange for

a cell move. Jones also stated that when he asked Barron about his cell move, Barron replied

“You know what you’ve got to do to get a cell move.” This Jones “perceived as an invite to

fight Ellington.” This declaration also infers that the impetus for Sweeten’s comment was

Plaintiff’s complaints concerning his inability to walk and need for a wheel chair. Docket 14-2,

p. 48.2

 In the second, inmate T. Goodman alleges that Sweeten told him (Goodman) to do “us a

favor and go in there and beat the shit out of Ellington.” Docket 14-2, p. 50.3

 In the third one,

inmate Isiah Williams alleges that while a cell-mate of Plaintiff, Barron stated “Oh, Lord, you

mean you haven’t beat [Plaintiff] up yet”? Docket 14-2, p. 52. Although in its present form the

complaint is somewhat inartfully drafted, cumbersome, and difficult to follow, it appears that

Plaintiff may plead sufficient facts upon which relief may be granted against defendants Sweeten

and Barron. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 317 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend

should be granted if it appears at all possible that plaintiff can cure the defects).

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 182 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 4
ORDER

Ellington v. Alamieda, 2:04-cv-00666-JKS-KJM 4

As to the other defendants, Alamieda, Runnels, Grannis, Dharlingue, and Felker, Plaintiff

has pleaded no facts to support his conclusory allegations that they personally participated in the

alleged employment of inmates to harm him and it does not appear that Plaintiff can plead any

such facts.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 15, 2007, are adopted in part and

rejected in part; 

2. Defendant W. Exum’s motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 134 is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 142 is DENIED;

4. The Complaint against W. Exum is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and

5. Plaintiff’s action may proceed against defendants Sweeten and Barron, provided that,

within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff files a second amended complaint addressing

solely the allegations against Sweeten and Barron.

Dated: February 22, 2008

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 182 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 4