Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02407/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02407-2/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

SERGIO SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2407-LAB (MDD)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

AND

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs.

AMY MILLER ,warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Sergio Sanchez, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings civil

rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He incarcerated at Centinela State Prison in Imperial,

California.

Plaintiff claimed several prison officials violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by filing disciplinary charges against him because he refused medical

treatment on September 27, 2013. (See Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 3-5, ¶¶ 9-26.) Defendants

filed motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment. These matters were referred to

Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin for a report and recommendation. 

On January 5, 2016, Judge Dembin issued his report and recommendation (the

“R&R”), which recommended granting the motions to dismiss and for partial summary

judgment, and dismissing all of Sanchez’s claims with prejudice. The R&R ordered that

- 1 - 14cv2407

Case 3:14-cv-02407-LAB-MDD Document 22 Filed 02/10/16 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

objections be filed by January 26, 2016, and cautioned the parties that failure to file

objections when due could waive appellate rights.

Since then Sanchez has not filed any objections, not sought additional time in which

to do so. The Court therefore ADOPTS all the R&R’s factual findings as correct. The Court

has also reviewed the R&R’s recommended rulings, finds them to be correct, and ADOPTS

the R&R as a whole.

Sanchez claims he was improperly found guilty of a disciplinary violation for refusing

medical treatment. Defendants, however, argued he was in fact disciplined for exaggerating

the seriousness of his medical condition in order to jump the queue ahead of other prisoners

and avoid paying a $5 fee, an infraction he could properly be punished for. Documents

Sanchez himself submitted show this was the charge against him, and that he was not

charged with or disciplined for refusing medical treatment. Sanchez also claims his Eighth

Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated when, as a

punishment for his infraction, he was for 30 days denied use of a personal television and CD

player, phone calls with his family, and some day room and yard privileges. The R&R

correctly concludes this does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Defendants also sought partial summary judgment, as to all claims other than the

retaliation claim against Defendant Telles, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Defendants presented evidence establishing the failure to exhaust, which Sanchez did not

attempt to rebut.

Sanchez’s claims other than his retaliation claim against Defendant Telles are subject

to dismissal with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies De f endant s ’

motion for partial summary judgment is therefore GRANTED. The motion to dismiss

establishes that Sanchez has not stated a claim and cannot do so. All Sanchez’s claims,

as well as this action as a whole, are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All

pending requests and motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

Sanchez’s failure to object to the R&R may not have waived legal issues on appeal. 

See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146–47 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that failure to object

- 2 - 14cv2407

Case 3:14-cv-02407-LAB-MDD Document 22 Filed 02/10/16 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

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation ordinarily does not waive legal claims

on appeal). But his failure to object to the R&R’s factual findings, which the Court has

accepted as true and has adopted, has waived his right to appeal those determinations. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Because the facts dictate the outcome, th

it is clear he cannot successfully appeal any legal issues. 

The Court therefore certifies that any appeal from this order of dismissal would not

be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv2407

Case 3:14-cv-02407-LAB-MDD Document 22 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 3