Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01292/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01292-4/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 - 10cv1292-WQH-MDD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1292-WQH-MDD

ORDER

vs.

GEORGE GIURBINO; LARRY

SMALLS; E. SILVA; M. TAMAYO; E.

DUARTE; JOHN ZINNA; JAMES

MORENO,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

29) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin, recommending that

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) be granted in

part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2010, Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez, a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed a “Second Amended

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights under Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983” (“Second

Amended Complaint”). (ECF No. 19). The Second Amended Complaint contains two counts.

Count One alleges Defendants Silva, Duarte, Tamayo, Zinna and Moreno violated Plaintiff’s

right to due process and First Amendments rights to freedom of speech and association by

validating Plaintiff as a gang member, which resulted in Plaintiff being housed in a Security

Housing Unit. See id. at 2-5. Count Two alleges that former Acting Warden Smalls and

Case 3:10-cv-01292-WQH-MDD Document 33 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 4
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 - 10cv1292-WQH-MDD

California Department of Corrections Director Giurbino violated Plaintiff’s right to due

process, First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association, and Eight Amendment

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. See id. at 5-6.

On December 30, 2010, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 20). Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims and

all claims against Defendants Smalls and Giurbino should be dismissed pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants do not move for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Due

Process claims against Defendants Silva, Duarte, Tamayo, Zinna and Moreno.

On May 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF

No. 29). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First

Amendment claims against each Defendant be granted; the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Smalls and Giurbino be granted; the Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Due Process claim against Defendant Giurbino be granted; and the Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Due Process claim against Defendant Smalls be denied. The Magistrate

Judge recommended that Plaintiff be given leave to amend as to all dismissed claims. The

Report and Recommendation provided that any objections must be filed no later than June 15,

2011.

The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been

filed.

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

The district judge must “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not

review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects.

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Case 3:10-cv-01292-WQH-MDD Document 33 Filed 07/07/11 Page 2 of 4
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 - 10cv1292-WQH-MDD

After review of the Report and Recommendation, the Second Amended Complaint, and

the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly set forth

the legal standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that, even viewing the allegations in the Second

Amended Complaint liberally, Plaintiff failed to adequately plead a First Amendment claim

or an Eighth Amendment claim against any Defendant. Cf. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89

(1987) (setting forth the standard for whether a prison regulation impermissibly impinges on

the constitutional rights of inmates); cf. also Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003)

(applying Turner to First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims). The Magistrate Judge

correctly found that Plaintiff failed to adequately plead a Due Process claim against Defendant

Giurbino, but did adequately plead a Due Process claim against Defendant Smalls. Cf. Bruce

v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth the standard for a Due Process

claim related to prison officials validating an inmate as a gang member).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

in its entirety (ECF No. 29); and (2) the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part (ECF No. 20). The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to each of Plaintiff’s First

Amendment claims, each of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, and Plaintiff’s Due Process

claim against Defendant Giurbino; each of those claims is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Otherwise, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

/ / / 

Case 3:10-cv-01292-WQH-MDD Document 33 Filed 07/07/11 Page 3 of 4
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 - 10cv1292-WQH-MDD

No later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file a third

amended complaint. If Plaintiff files a third amended complaint, the pleading must be

complete in itself, and may not incorporate by reference any prior pleading. Any defendant

not named and all claims not re-alleged will be deemed waived. If Plaintiff does not file a

third amended complaint within 45 days, this case shall proceed as to the claims in the Second

Amended Complaint which remain after this Order.

DATED: July 7, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01292-WQH-MDD Document 33 Filed 07/07/11 Page 4 of 4