Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05892/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05892-17/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

JAMES GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O RICHHI, 

Defendant. 

 /

1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 83)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 63)

Plaintiff James Garrett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 June 5, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. 

On July 6, 2006, defendant Ricci (“Defendant”) filed an

objection, and on July 11, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection.

//

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 88 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 5
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

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.

In his objections, Defendant Ricci contends that the

Magistrate Judge erred in concluding there was a disputed issue

of fact on whether Defendant could have moved Plaintiff. In the

objections, Defendant submits Exhibit D, which provides prison

rules stating that a Facility Lieutenant or Sergeant must

authorize an inmate’s bed housing assignment. The court

declines to consider this new evidence. A new theory cannot

properly be raised in objections to Findings and Recommendations. 

Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir.

1988), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty,

977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual assertions that which

could have been but were not presented to the Magistrate Judge

should be given no consideration when the court is deciding

whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations Sundaram v. County

of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam

System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9

(C.D.Cal. 1997). "[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their

case before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their

strategy and present a different theory to the district court

would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow,

863 F.2d at 638. In addition, taking all evidence in Plaintiff’s

favor, Plaintiff talked to Defendant about his bed assignment for

two weeks, and Defendant Ricci did not do anything, such as

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 88 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 5
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

directing Plaintiff’s request to someone who could effectuate the

change. Thus, Defendants objections do not present a basis to

not adopt the Findings and Recommendations.

In his objections, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge

erred by recommending Defendant be granted summary judgment on

Plaintiff’s equal protection claims. As explained by the

Magistrate Judge, the Equal Protection Clause requires that

persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. City of

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439

(1985). A plaintiff generally establishes an equal protection

claim by showing that a defendant has intentionally discriminated

on the basis of the plaintiff's membership in a protected class.

See, e.g., Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9

Cir.2001) (citing Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th

Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999)). The first step

in this equal protection analysis is to identify the asserted

classification of groups. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425

F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9 Cir. 2005); Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, th

68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9 Cir. 1995). The groups must be th

comprised of similarly situated persons so that the factor

motivating the alleged discrimination can be identified. 

Freeman, 68 F.3d at 1187. “An equal protection claim will not

lie by ‘conflating all persons not injured into a preferred class

receiving better treatment’ than the plaintiff. Thornton, 425

F.3d at 1167 (quoting Joyce v. Mavromatis, 783 F.2d 56, 57 (9th

Cir. 1986). Under this theory of equal protection, the plaintiff

must show that the Defendants’ actions were a result of the

plaintiff’s membership in a suspect class, such as race. 

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 88 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Thornton, 425 F.3d at 1167. If the state action in question does

not involve a suspect classification, a plaintiff establishes an

equal protection claim by showing similarly situated individuals

are treated differently without a rational relationship to a

legitimate state purpose. See San Antonio School District v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972); Squaw Valley Development Co. v.

Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Village of

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)). 

On this summary judgment motion, Plaintiff is required to

come forward with evidence showing that other inmates who had a

medical need for a lower bunk and requested a lower bunk from

Defendant, were given a lower bunk. See Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); First Nat'l

Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968);

Ruffin v. County of Los Angeles, 607 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9 Cir. th

1979). Absent evidence that Defendant treated other similarly

situated inmates differently, Plaintiff’s equal protection claim

fails. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 5, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed February

6, 2006, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim

against him is DENIED; and,

b. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim is

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 88 Filed 08/29/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

GRANTED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to

be set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 88 Filed 08/29/06 Page 5 of 5