1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 KEVIN DEWAYNE TAYLOR, JR., CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00013-DGE- 11 Plaintiff, DWC 12 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 4) 14 Defendant. 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the 17 Honorable Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. (Dkt. No. 9.) The R&R recommends that 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (See 19 id.) Plaintiff filed an objection which states in its entirety: “I Kevin Taylor Jr objects to the 20 Report & Recommendation in case no. 2:25-cv-13-DGE-DWC to counts I, II.” (Dkt. No. 10.) 21 Previously, Judge Christel identified that Plaintiff’s initial complaint failed to explain how 22 Defendants caused the constitutional violations alleged, and directed him to file an amended 23 complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff did file an amended complaint, which includes three counts: 24 1 Count I alleges a Fourteenth Amendment violation for failure to respond to grievances 2 concerning allegedly unsanitary food trays, Count II alleges a First Amendment violation 3 concerning the grievances and food trays, and Count III alleges that Defendants are abridging 4 Plaintiff’s freedom of religion by forcing him to eat off of the unsanitary trays. (See Dkt. No. 8.)
5 A district court reviews de novo “those portions of the report or specified proposed 6 findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see 7 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 8 magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). However, objections to an 9 R&R must be “specific.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Multiple courts have held that “to the extent 10 the objections amount to no more than general or conclusory objections to the report and 11 recommendation, without specifying to which issues in the report objection is made . . . a de 12 novo review is unwarranted. Instead, the report and recommendation is reviewed by the district 13 judge for clear error.” Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. Astrue, 854 F. Supp. 2d 176, 178 (D.P.R. 2012) 14 (internal citations omitted); see also Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty.
15 of Albany, 419 F. Supp. 2d 206, 210 (N.D.N.Y. 2005); Venson v. Jackson, 2019 WL 1531271, at 16 *1 (S.D. Cal. April 8, 2019). Here, Plaintiff’s summary objection fails to identify any analysis in 17 the R&R that is faulty and does not trigger de novo review. 18 Nonetheless, having carefully reviewed the record, the Court reaches the same 19 conclusions as the R&R and finds no clear error. As to Count I, the R&R correctly finds that 20 there is no due process right to any particular grievance process, and so Plaintiff cannot state a 21 due process claim for failure to respond to grievances alone. (See Dkt. No. 9 at 3–4.) The R&R 22 also identifies that there is a First Amendment right to petition the government through the 23 prison grievance process. (See id. at 3, citing Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir.
24 1 2009); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012)). But the First Amendment right 2 is to file a grievance, not to a particular response. Cf. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 472 (6th Cir. 3 2010) (no First Amendment protection for frivolous grievances). 4 As to the food trays themselves (discussed in all three counts), the R&R acknowledges
5 that there is a right to “adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal 6 safety.” (Dkt. No. 9 at 4) (quoting Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th 7 Cir. 1996)). That encompasses a right to food that is not tainted or served in an unsanitary 8 manner. See e.g., Garcia v. Foulk, No. 214CV2378JAMDBP, 2020 WL 564791, at *9–11 (E.D. 9 Cal. Feb. 5, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Garcia v. Folks, No. 10 214CV2378JAMDBP, 2020 WL 1432994 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (denying summary 11 judgment as to unsanitary food claim). And Plaintiff did plead some factual information as to 12 the condition of the trays, such as that he allegedly showed unnamed “jail officials” how dirty 13 the trays were by taking a tray, pouring some water on it, and cleaning food off of it with his 14 fingernail, to which those officials responded that they would “let the sergeant know.” (Dkt. No.
15 8 at 8.) 16 However, the R&R identifies that the amended complaint does not explain how 17 Defendants (which include four supervisory officials: Director Allen Nance, Deputy Director 18 Jennifer Albright, Deputy Director Steven Larsen, Major Michael Taylor, and Commander 19 “Manny,” as well as King County) caused this condition. (See Dkt. Nos. 8 at 4–5; 9 at 4–5.) As 20 to the supervisory defendants, “[a] defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if 21 there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a 22 sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional 23 violation.’” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885
24 1 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff did not adequately plead either of those bases for 2 liability. Plaintiff names multiple other lower-level officers whom he allegedly showed the dirty 3 trays to and alleges that Defendants Taylor and Manny told him they would “look into it.” (Dkt. 4 No. 8 at 10, 12–14.) But that does not explain how the named Defendants participated in or
5 caused the constitutional deprivation. Rather, the complaint summarily states that the named 6 Defendants “are operating pursuant to a custom where it is depriving me of my [Fourteenth 7 Amendment rights] by constantly and continu[ally] serving food on unsanitary food trays.” (Id. 8 at 11.) Conclusory statements such as this are not entitled to a presumption of truth on a motion 9 to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, the Magistrate Judge 10 identified these flaws with the initial complaint (see Dkt. No. 7 at 2–3) but they were not cured in 11 the amended complaint. For these reasons, the Court finds no clear error in the R&R’s analysis 12 of the food tray claim. 13 Finally, as to Plaintiff’s free exercise claim, the R&R correctly notes that “Plaintiff has 14 not sufficiently alleged Defendants failed to provide him with food that satisfies the dietary laws
15 of his religion or that there is some type of contamination that violates the dietary laws of his 16 religion.” (Dkt. No. 9 at 6.) Likewise, “Plaintiff also fails to identify . . . why the unsanitary 17 trays do not comport with his religious beliefs.” (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff failed to state a First 18 Amendment claim.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 KEVIN DEWAYNE TAYLOR, JR., CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00013-DGE- 11 Plaintiff, DWC 12 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 4) 14 Defendant. 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the 17 Honorable Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. (Dkt. No. 9.) The R&R recommends that 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (See 19 id.) Plaintiff filed an objection which states in its entirety: “I Kevin Taylor Jr objects to the 20 Report & Recommendation in case no. 2:25-cv-13-DGE-DWC to counts I, II.” (Dkt. No. 10.) 21 Previously, Judge Christel identified that Plaintiff’s initial complaint failed to explain how 22 Defendants caused the constitutional violations alleged, and directed him to file an amended 23 complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff did file an amended complaint, which includes three counts: 24 1 Count I alleges a Fourteenth Amendment violation for failure to respond to grievances 2 concerning allegedly unsanitary food trays, Count II alleges a First Amendment violation 3 concerning the grievances and food trays, and Count III alleges that Defendants are abridging 4 Plaintiff’s freedom of religion by forcing him to eat off of the unsanitary trays. (See Dkt. No. 8.)
5 A district court reviews de novo “those portions of the report or specified proposed 6 findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see 7 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 8 magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). However, objections to an 9 R&R must be “specific.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Multiple courts have held that “to the extent 10 the objections amount to no more than general or conclusory objections to the report and 11 recommendation, without specifying to which issues in the report objection is made . . . a de 12 novo review is unwarranted. Instead, the report and recommendation is reviewed by the district 13 judge for clear error.” Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. Astrue, 854 F. Supp. 2d 176, 178 (D.P.R. 2012) 14 (internal citations omitted); see also Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty.
15 of Albany, 419 F. Supp. 2d 206, 210 (N.D.N.Y. 2005); Venson v. Jackson, 2019 WL 1531271, at 16 *1 (S.D. Cal. April 8, 2019). Here, Plaintiff’s summary objection fails to identify any analysis in 17 the R&R that is faulty and does not trigger de novo review. 18 Nonetheless, having carefully reviewed the record, the Court reaches the same 19 conclusions as the R&R and finds no clear error. As to Count I, the R&R correctly finds that 20 there is no due process right to any particular grievance process, and so Plaintiff cannot state a 21 due process claim for failure to respond to grievances alone. (See Dkt. No. 9 at 3–4.) The R&R 22 also identifies that there is a First Amendment right to petition the government through the 23 prison grievance process. (See id. at 3, citing Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir.
24 1 2009); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012)). But the First Amendment right 2 is to file a grievance, not to a particular response. Cf. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 472 (6th Cir. 3 2010) (no First Amendment protection for frivolous grievances). 4 As to the food trays themselves (discussed in all three counts), the R&R acknowledges
5 that there is a right to “adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal 6 safety.” (Dkt. No. 9 at 4) (quoting Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th 7 Cir. 1996)). That encompasses a right to food that is not tainted or served in an unsanitary 8 manner. See e.g., Garcia v. Foulk, No. 214CV2378JAMDBP, 2020 WL 564791, at *9–11 (E.D. 9 Cal. Feb. 5, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Garcia v. Folks, No. 10 214CV2378JAMDBP, 2020 WL 1432994 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (denying summary 11 judgment as to unsanitary food claim). And Plaintiff did plead some factual information as to 12 the condition of the trays, such as that he allegedly showed unnamed “jail officials” how dirty 13 the trays were by taking a tray, pouring some water on it, and cleaning food off of it with his 14 fingernail, to which those officials responded that they would “let the sergeant know.” (Dkt. No.
15 8 at 8.) 16 However, the R&R identifies that the amended complaint does not explain how 17 Defendants (which include four supervisory officials: Director Allen Nance, Deputy Director 18 Jennifer Albright, Deputy Director Steven Larsen, Major Michael Taylor, and Commander 19 “Manny,” as well as King County) caused this condition. (See Dkt. Nos. 8 at 4–5; 9 at 4–5.) As 20 to the supervisory defendants, “[a] defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if 21 there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a 22 sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional 23 violation.’” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885
24 1 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff did not adequately plead either of those bases for 2 liability. Plaintiff names multiple other lower-level officers whom he allegedly showed the dirty 3 trays to and alleges that Defendants Taylor and Manny told him they would “look into it.” (Dkt. 4 No. 8 at 10, 12–14.) But that does not explain how the named Defendants participated in or
5 caused the constitutional deprivation. Rather, the complaint summarily states that the named 6 Defendants “are operating pursuant to a custom where it is depriving me of my [Fourteenth 7 Amendment rights] by constantly and continu[ally] serving food on unsanitary food trays.” (Id. 8 at 11.) Conclusory statements such as this are not entitled to a presumption of truth on a motion 9 to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, the Magistrate Judge 10 identified these flaws with the initial complaint (see Dkt. No. 7 at 2–3) but they were not cured in 11 the amended complaint. For these reasons, the Court finds no clear error in the R&R’s analysis 12 of the food tray claim. 13 Finally, as to Plaintiff’s free exercise claim, the R&R correctly notes that “Plaintiff has 14 not sufficiently alleged Defendants failed to provide him with food that satisfies the dietary laws
15 of his religion or that there is some type of contamination that violates the dietary laws of his 16 religion.” (Dkt. No. 9 at 6.) Likewise, “Plaintiff also fails to identify . . . why the unsanitary 17 trays do not comport with his religious beliefs.” (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff failed to state a First 18 Amendment claim. 19 For these reasons, the Court having considered the Report and Recommendation and the 20 remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows: 21 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 22 (2) The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which 23 relief can be granted.
24 1 (3) The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT and close this case. The Clerk is directed to 2 send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Hon. David W. Christel. 3 4 Dated this 21st day of May, 2025.
5 a 6 David G. Estudillo 7 United States District Judge
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24