Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01340-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 26)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72-302.

On July 14, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. On July

26, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 34 Filed 08/28/06 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

By order filed May 22, 2006, plaintiff was given the option to

either file a second amended complaint or notify the Magistrate

Judge of his voluntary willingness to proceed only on the claims

found to be cognizable by the Magistrate Judge in his order. On

June 1, 2006, plaintiff notified the Magistrate Judge that he did

not wish to amend and wished to proceed only on the claims found to

be cognizable. As a result of plaintiff’s notice, on July 14,

2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an order finding service of

plaintiff’s amended complaint appropriate and directing plaintiff

to complete and return USM-285 forms and summonses for service of

process, and a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal

of certain claims and defendants. Despite having opted not to file

a second amended complaint and agreeing to proceed only on his

cognizable claims, plaintiff now objects to the dismissal of his

equal protection claim.

In his objection, plaintiff argues that he may bring an equal

protection claim against prison officials based on their

discriminatory hiring policy. Plaintiff contends that the hiring

policy limits employment opportunities for African American guards

and results in the overwhelming employment of Hispanic and

Caucasian guards, thereby subjecting plaintiff to discrimination.

The Magistrate Judge explained to plaintiff that he may bring an

equal protection claim based on intentional discrimination against

plaintiff but that he has no standing to challenge the hiring

policy. Because plaintiff fails to allege any facts supporting a

claim that he was intentionally discriminated against by staff on

the basis of his race, plaintiff fails to state a claim. The facts

alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint relating to the hiring

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 34 Filed 08/28/06 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

policy do not support a claim that plaintiff was discriminated

against and plaintiff sets forth no additional facts in his

objection supporting such a claim. Plaintiff’s citation to Johnson

v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 125 S.Ct. 1141 (2005), a case in which

plaintiff was the petitioner, is inapposite as it involved a racial

segregation policy applied to and directly affecting inmates.

Plaintiff’s objection to the dismissal of his equal protection

claims is without merit and this claim shall be dismissed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 14, 2006, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed January 31, 2006, against defendants

Hart, Bonilla, Smith, Davis, Kellog, Scribner, Andrews,

Schwarzenegger, Hickman, and Woodford for excessive

force, and against defendant Amaya for deliberate

indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation

of the Eighth Amendment;

3. Plaintiff’s section 1983 retaliation and equal protection

claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 34 Filed 08/28/06 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

4. Plaintiff’s section 1985(3) claim is DISMISSED, with

prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted; and,

5. Defendants Kavanaugh and Moran are DISMISSED from this

action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 34 Filed 08/28/06 Page 4 of 4