(PC) Parrish v. Bugarin

Opinion

KAHEAL PARRISH, No. 1:19-cv-00490-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BUGARIN, et al., DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Doc. No. 26)

Plaintiff Kaheal Parrish is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendants Camargo and Martinez, but he failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 22.) On October 2, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims identified by the court. (Doc. No. 25.) In his notification, plaintiff also stated that he wished to preserve his objection to a portion of the screening order finding that he had not stated a cognizable Equal Protection claim. (Id.) Accordingly, on October 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s complaint against defendants Camargo and Martinez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. No. 26.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. The magistrate judge also noted plaintiff’s objection regarding his Equal Protection claim, and informed plaintiff that he may wish to preserve his objection in response to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) On October 29, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, again arguing that he had stated a cognizable Equal Protection claim in his complaint.1 (Doc. No. 28.) Specifically, plaintiff contends he is a “member of a protected class pursuant to the Americans with Disability [sic] Act (ADA) of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,” and alleges that defendants “imposed a wanton retaliatory act against Plaintiff as a direct result of being a mental health participant and protected class member.” (Id. at 1–2.) However, “the disabled do not constitute a suspect class for equal protection purposes,” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 687 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted)), and thus plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim cannot be sustained under the theory that he was discriminated against because of his membership in a protected class. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. ///// /////

1 On October 13, 2020, plaintiff also filed another copy of his notice of willingness to proceed on cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 27.) As this document appears to be a photocopy of the plaintiff’s original notification to the court filed October 2, 2020, (Doc. No. 25), it will be disregarded. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 7, 2020, (Doc. No. 26), are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's complaint, filed April 15, 2019, (Doc. No. 1), against defendants Camargo and Martinez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and 4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. a Dated: _ January 22, 2021 J aL A 4 7 a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE