(PC) Jackson v. Rivera

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, No. 1:24-cv-00261-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 RIVERA, et al., Doc. 9 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Cornel Jackson is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 2, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint, Doc. 7 (“FAC”), and found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against defendants 22 Joe Martinez, Cpl. Gill, and Cortes for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and against 23 defendants Joe Martinez, Cpl. Gill, and Cortes for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 24 Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 9. The magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims 25 and defendants be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be 26 granted. Id. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 27 that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days after service. Id. On October 16, 2024, 28 plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 10. In accordance 1 with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 2 Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his supervisory liability claims against defendants 3 Tyson Pouge, Esteves, Sgt. Rivera, Cpt. Rodriguez, Cpl. Schmalls, and Cpl. Gill, and his access 4 to courts claim against all defendants. For the reasons stated in the findings and 5 recommendations, the Court does not find plaintiff’s objections to be persuasive as to defendants 6 Tyson Pouge, Esteves, and Cpt. Rodriguez, or with respect to his access of courts claim as to the 7 defendants. However, the Court does find that plaintiff’s FAC states a cognizable claim against 8 Sgt. Rivera and against Cpl. Schmalls for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and for 9 a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 10 Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Rivera “direct[ed] defendants Cpl. Gill, Cpl. Schmalls, Joe 11 Martinez, and Cortes to search his dormitory,” and that the search was “initiated immediately 12 after settling a civil rights action for retaliation cell searches” in which Sgt. Rivera was a 13 defendant. FAC at 5. Plaintiff alleges Cpl. Schmalls accompanied defendants Joe Martinez, Cpl. 14 Gill, and Cortes during the search. Joe Martinez, Cpl. Gill and Cortes allegedly “advised the 15 plaintiff and his dormmates that the plaintiff’s litigations were the cause of the search.” Id. at 4. 16 Plaintiff also alleges that Cpl. Schmalls “acknowledged that [his] decisions [to search plaintiff’s 17 cell and confiscate his writing supplies] were going to cause prejudice[] from plaintiff missing his 18 deadline,” and that Cpl. Schmalls responded “[I] don’t care.” Id. at 5. Such assertions 19 sufficiently state circumstantial evidence to allege that Sgt. Rivera, in directing the search, and 20 Cpl. Schmalls, in executing the search, also acted with a retaliatory purpose. See Pratt v. 21 Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]iming can properly be considered as 22 circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent.”); see also Bruce v. Ylst, 351. F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th 23 Cir. 2003) (reversing grant of summary judgment as to retaliation claim due to “suspect timing of 24 the validation [investigation]—coming soon after [plaintiff’s] success in the prison conditions 25 grievances.”); Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1989) (reversing grant 26 of summary judgment as to retaliation claim due to suspicious timing and nature of suspension of 27 county permits). 28 /// 1 Regarding plaintiff's other objections, plaintiff's argument that the confiscation of his 2 | writing supplies during the cell search caused him actual harm when he missed a filing deadline 3 | in Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-EPG, is unpersuasive. The judge in that action found the same 4 | arguments unpersuasive in finding that one search of plaintiff's jail cell on one occasion, three 5 | days before a deadline that afforded plaintiff almost three months to produce his late discovery, 6 | could not excuse plaintiff's delay. Order on Motions in Limine at 7, Jackson v. Quick, Case No. 7 | 1:19-cv-01591-EPG (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2024), ECF No. 192. Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, 8 | plaintiff's proposed trial evidence was excluded in that case not due to his lack of writing 9 | materials, but due to plaintiff's failure to timely disclose pertinent discovery to the opposing 10 | party. Id. 11 Accordingly,: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 2, 2024, Doc. 9, are adopted in part; 13 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed September 13, 2024, 14 Doc. 7, against defendants Joe Martinez, Cpl. Gill, Cortes, Cpl. Schmalls, and Sgt. Rivera 15 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and for violation of the Equal 16 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 17 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims 18 upon which relief may be granted; and 19 4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this 20 order. 21 22 93 | SO ORDERED. _ 24 Dated: _ July 11, 2025 4h | | 95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28