Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02313/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02313-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dante Renee Budd
Plaintiff
R. Guillermo
Defendant
J. Harrison
Defendant
S. Martinez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANTE RENEE BUDD,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HARRISSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-2313 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2023, the undersigned found that plaintiff’s amended complaint 

stated potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants J. Harrison, S. 

Martinez, and R. Guillermo, but did not state cognizable claims under the Fourth or Fourteenth 

Amendments. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to elect to proceed solely as to his Eighth 

Amendment claims or to file a second amended complaint and was cautioned that failure to do so 

would result in a recommendation that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims be 

dismissed. Thirty days have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed a notice of election or second 

amended complaint. 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that the actions and omissions of defendants 

also violated plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. (ECF No. 15 at 11.) However, 

plaintiff includes no facts demonstrating a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:23-cv-02313-KJM-CSK Document 17 Filed 02/01/24 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

allegations concerning the failure of defendants to provide emergency medical care or failing to 

protect plaintiff arise under the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourth Amendment.

In addition to alleging cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff alleges defendants’ actions

and omissions violated plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, such claim is 

subsumed by the Eighth Amendment and does not state a separate claim. See Albright v. Oliver, 

510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (“Where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of 

constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not 

the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing such a 

claim.”) (internal quotes and citation omitted); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327(1986) (the 

Fourteenth Amendment affords a prisoner no greater protection than the Eighth Amendment).

Finally, plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting a discrimination claim under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. “The Equal Protection Clause . . . is essentially a direction that all 

persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 

473 U.S. 432 (1985) (citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). “To state a § 1983 claim 

for violation of the Equal Protection Clause ‘a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with 

an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected 

class.’” Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lee v. City 

of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001)), or show that similarly situated individuals 

were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, 

Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 601-02 (2008). “Intentional 

discrimination means that a defendant acted at least in part because of a plaintiff’s protected 

status.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Maynard v. City of San 

Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1404 (9th Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in original). 

Here, the sole allegation supporting plaintiff’s discrimination claim is that on November 

10, 2023, a Caucasian or Hispanic inmate was allowed to go man-down on CHCF E yard near the 

medical center. However, plaintiff fails to show he is a member of a protected class, and also 

fails to show any defendant refused him medical care because of such protected class status. 

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate that plaintiff and the other inmate were similarly 

Case 2:23-cv-02313-KJM-CSK Document 17 Filed 02/01/24 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

situated; indeed, it is likely the other inmate suffered from a different medical condition than 

plaintiff. Moreover, it is unclear whether the other inmate’s medical condition constituted a 

legitimate state purpose for treating such inmate differently. Thus, plaintiff fails to state an equal 

protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to 

amend to include additional facts but failed to do so. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims should be dismissed, and 

this action should proceed solely as to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants J. 

Harrison, S. Martinez, and R. Guillermo. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 

a district judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims be

dismissed, and this action proceed solely on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants J. Harrison, S. Martinez, and R. Guillermo.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 1, 2024

 

/budd2313.56

Case 2:23-cv-02313-KJM-CSK Document 17 Filed 02/01/24 Page 3 of 3