Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00699/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00699-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Cherokee Brown
Plaintiff
R. Pleshchuk
Defendant
R. Valencia
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. PLESHCHUK, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-0699 TLN KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. By order filed June 11, 2019, plaintiff was 

granted thirty days leave in which to file an amended complaint in an effort to properly raise 

retaliation claims against defendants. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint raising 

retaliation claims, and in his December 18, 2019 filing, did not indicate he wished to raise 

retaliation claims, but confirmed that he intended to proceed on his original complaint. As noted 

in the June 11, 2019 order, plaintiff’s original complaint fails to state a retaliation claim because 

although he checked the box claiming a retaliation cause of action, he did not address all of the 

elements required to state a cognizable retaliation claim. (ECF No. 7 at 3.) Thus, to the extent 

plaintiff attempted to raise retaliation claims in his original complaint, such claims should be 

dismissed.

By separate order, the undersigned found that plaintiff’s due process claims should also be 

dismissed because the Eighth Amendment provides the explicit textual source for plaintiff’s 

Case 2:19-cv-00699-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 2
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

claims against defendants Dr. Pleschuk and Dr. Valencia, and plaintiff alleges no specific facts 

demonstrating a separate due process claim. “‘[W]here 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 these claims.’” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842 

(1998) (quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

395 (1989)). Therefore, plaintiff’s due process claims should also be dismissed.

This action will proceed solely on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants Dr. Pleschuk and Dr. Valencia. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s retaliation and due 

process claims (ECF No. 1) should be dismissed without prejudice.

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: March 17, 2020

/brow0699.56

Case 2:19-cv-00699-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 2