Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00330/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00330-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00330 NONE JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

(Doc. Nos. 16, 19)

 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 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 302.

On January 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that some of the claims could proceed, while others were not cognizable as plead. (Doc. 

No. 13.) In that screening order the magistrate judge provided plaintiff the option to stand on his 

original complaint, proceed with it as screened, or file an amended complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff filed 

a notice of his willingness to proceed on the complaint as screened and to dismiss the claims 

deemed non-cognizable by the screening order. (Doc. No. 14.) The magistrate judge thereafter 

issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s claims found to be noncognizable in the screening order be dismissed, which were served on plaintiff and which 

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after 

Case 1:19-cv-00330-AWI-CDB Document 24 Filed 04/15/20 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

2

service. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff has since filed a document titled “motion to extend time and for 

reconsideration” (Doc. No. 19), which the court construes as objections to the findings and 

recommendations. To the extent this document requested an extension of time to file objections 

to the findings and recommendations, that request will be granted. Plaintiff, who describes 

having been transferred between institutions around the time the findings and recommendations 

were issued, has shown good cause for the granting of an extension of time to file his objections

and the court has considered them. 

Plaintiff’s sole objection to the findings and recommendations concerns the magistrate 

judge’s conclusion that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim against defendant 

Correctional Officer (“CO”) Madrigal. Plaintiff contends that the allegations of his complaint 

properly implicated CO Madrigal because he was “directly present and acting in concert with 

deprivations imposed by Defendant Scalley....” (Doc. No. 19 at 2-3.) According to plaintiff, CO 

Madrigal should have interceded when his fellow officers violated plaintiff’s rights. In support of 

his objection in this regard, plaintiff cites to a footnote in United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 

1447 n.25 (9th Cir. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 (1996), in which the Ninth Circuit 

noted that a police officer has a duty to intercede when their fellow officers violate the 

constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen. 

Plaintiff’s allegations as alleged in his complaint relating to CO Madrigal are limited to 

the following: CO Madrigal and CO Scalley escorted plaintiff to administrative segregation, CO 

Madrigal was present when CO Scalley forcefully pushed plaintiff into the holding cell, and CO 

Madrigal was present when CO Scalley removed plaintiff’s legal papers and threatened him. 

Contrary to plaintiff’s suggestion, however, nothing in these allegations indicates that CO 

Madrigal conspired or acted in concert with CO Scalley. There is also no indication that CO 

Madrigal knew CO Scalley would push plaintiff or that CO Madrigal had a “realistic opportunity” 

to intercede in that moment. See Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 

2000). As for the confiscation of plaintiff’s legal paperwork, this act implicates a constitutional 

right only when it actually results in the thwarting of plaintiff’s pursuit of a civil rights action or a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Because plaintiff 

Case 1:19-cv-00330-AWI-CDB Document 24 Filed 04/15/20 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

3

has not alleged an actual injury stemming from CO Scalley’s conduct, CO Madrigal’s alleged 

failure to act does not serve as the basis for a cognizable claim. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 19) is granted;

2. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2010 (Doc. No. 16) are adopted 

in full; 

3. This action shall proceed on the following claims: (1) a First Amendment retaliation 

claim Thompson, Houston, Shoemaker, Castalas, and Hawthorne; (2) an Eighth 

Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Thompson, Houston, Shoemaker; 

(3) an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Robinson, Castalas, and 

Perez; and (4) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Scalley, Castalas, 

and Perez.

4. All remaining claims and defendants are hereby dismissed; and

5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00330-AWI-CDB Document 24 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 3