Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00999/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00999-0/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 - 06cv0999

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDE P. NWANDU, CDC #T-44183,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV0999-LAB (WMc)

ORDER MODIFYING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

SUSTAINING IN PART AND

OVERRULING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, AND

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER RE: AMENDED

COMPLAINT

vs.

V. BACH, A. CASTILLO, A. DAVILA,

M. TAYLOR ,

Defendants.

On September 28, 2007, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims. Plaintiff on October 29, 2007 filed his Amended

Complaint. Defendants then moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The motion and all

nondispositive matters in this case have been referred to Magistrate Judge William McCurine for

report and recommendation, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3.

On May 16, 2008, Judge McCurine issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”)

recommending denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants filed

objections to the R&R, to which Plaintiff then filed a reply.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation

concerning a dispositive pretrial motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge to whom the case

Case 3:06-cv-00999-WMC Document 49 Filed 09/29/08 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 - 06cv0999

is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any

portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in

accordance with this rule.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Thus, this Court reviews those parts of the report and recommendation to

which a party has filed a written objection. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are essentially that he had filed a grievance about Defendant Bach while

at another institution, which resulted in Defendant Bach being restricted from certain duties. When

Plaintiff was transferred to Calipatria State Prison, he alleges Defendant Bach, who was now working

there, recognized him. He alleges that the next day, Defendant Bach, together with the other

Defendants, engaged in retaliatory acts, beginning by falsifying charges that he threatened a new

cellmate. He alleges Defendants later attacked him, twisted his arms behind his back, handcuffed him

in a manner that violated medical orders, slammed his head against a wall, and destroyed or took his

legal papers and property.

The R&R interpreted the Amended Complaint as alleging, among other things, that Defendants

engaged in this behavior in order to chill Plaintiff from making further use of the prison grievance

process. (R&R, 7:2–6.) Defendants object to the R&R on two grounds. First, they argue, Plaintiff

never alleged he attempted or would have attempted to engage in First Amendment-protected activities

this retaliation could have chilled. Second, they argue Plaintiff has failed to allege the attack was for

the purposes of preventing him from making use of the prison grievance system or otherwise violating

his Constitutional rights. Defendants argue the R&R goes too far in interpreting the Amended

Complaint by providing allegations Plaintiff has not made. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of

Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9 Cir. 1982) (while civil rights complaints filed pro se are construed th

liberally, such a construction “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially

pled”) (citation omitted).

Part of the confusion may result from the application of an old and now incorrect standard for

motions to dismiss. The motion was briefed by both parties as governed by the “no set of facts”

standard originally set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957). This holding has since

Case 3:06-cv-00999-WMC Document 49 Filed 09/29/08 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 - 06cv0999

been rejected by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955,

1968–69 and n.8 (2007). Rather than the standard set forth in Conley, the Court applies the more usual

standard of accepting all allegations of material fact as true and construing them in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party — here, Plaintiff. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. National League

of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9 Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The R&R is therefore

th

MODIFIED to incorporate this new standard.

In examining a claim's sufficiency, as opposed to its substantive merits, the Court ordinarily

looks “only to the face of the complaint to decide a motion to dismiss.” Van Buskirk v. Cable

Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). “It is not . . . proper to assume that [a plaintiff] can

prove facts that [he] has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the [laws] in ways that have

not been alleged.” Bell, 127 S.Ct. at 1969 n.8 (citation omitted).

Here, the Amended Complaint attempted to incorporate by reference all allegations included

in the original complaint and other pleadings. (Am. Compl., 1:17–20.) While the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure do not prohibit this, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), this is not permitted under the

Civil Local Rules. See Civil Local Rule 15.1 (“Unless prior approval is obtained from the court, every

pleading to which an amendment is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order,

shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.”)

The R&R correctly inferred Plaintiff’s meaning, apparently aided partly by prior pleadings and

partly from the factual context of the claim as set forth in the Amended Complaint. Defendants are

correct that the Amended Complaint never explicitly makes the allegations the R&R relies on. It is

nevertheless clear Plaintiff did mean to make these allegations, and Plaintiff says as much in his

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss(Docket no. 42), his sur-reply to the same motion (Docket

no. 45), and his reply to Defendants’ objections to the R&R (Docket no. 48). (Opposition to Mot. to

Dismiss at 2:4–13; Sur-ReplyMot. to Dismiss at 2:3–12; Replyto Obj. to R&R at 2:12–23 (citing Am.

Compl. at 2:20–22, 4:2–4, 4:25–5:6).)

Ordinarily, the Amended Complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim and

Plaintiff would be permitted to amend his complaint a second time to add the allegations he intended

to add but, because of local rules requirements, did not. In this situation, however, the R&R explains

Case 3:06-cv-00999-WMC Document 49 Filed 09/29/08 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 - 06cv0999

what Plaintiff intended to allege and what he has affirmed he believes he did allege. Particularly in

light of Plaintiff’s allegations that his legal supplies, including his typewriter, were taken from him

(Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 2:11–15), the Court considers the formality of filing a second amended

complaint unnecessarily burdensome. Therefore, the Amended Complaint is deemed AMENDED as

of the date this order is issued, and will henceforth be construed as the R&R recommends. The

Amended Complaint (Docket no. 36), as construed by the R&R (Docket no. 46), will constitute the

operative complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that these two documents together set forth all

his allegations and claims. If he wishes amend his complaint again to add claims or allege facts not

set forth in the Amended Complaint as interpreted by the R&R, he must first seek and receive leave

from the Court.

Defendants’ objections are SUSTAINED to the limited extent described above. In all other

respects, they are OVERRULED and the Court ADOPTS the R&R as modified herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00999-WMC Document 49 Filed 09/29/08 Page 4 of 4