Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knox v. Castaneda

United States District Court, S.D. California

March 10, 2017

MICHAEL ANTHONY KNOX, Plaintiff,
v.
F. CASTANEDA et al, Defendants.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge.

         The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, and the Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed by Defendants (ECF No. 35).

         I. Background

         On December 11, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Anthony Knox commenced this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1).

         On March 21, 2016, Defendants F. Castaneda, E. Delgado, G. Mejia, D. Hamilton, W. Enders, and M. Whitman (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 27). On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff['s] motion for defense and motion of objection to all of the [Defendants'] points of authority for concerning their [Defendants'] notice of motion and motion to dismiss complaint” (the “Opposition”). (ECF No. 30). On April 22, 2016, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 32).

         On November 17, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27), and terminate Plaintiff's “motion for defense and motion of objection to all of the [Defendants'] points of authority for concerning their [Defendants'] notice of motion and motion to dismiss complaint” (ECF No. 30). (ECF No. 34). On November 29, 2016, Defendants filed an objection. (ECF No. 35). As of the date of this Order, the record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation or a response to Defendants' Objection to the Report and Recommendation.

         II. Legal Standard

         The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[, ]” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).

         III. Discussion

         Initially, the Court declines to adopt the portion of the Report & Recommendation addressing the Eighth Amendment claim as it applies to the search of Plaintiff's cell. (ECF No. 34 at 11:27 - 13:3). The Eighth Amendment prohibits searches of prisoner cells “conducted only for ‘calculated harassment.'” Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir. 1989). However, “[a]fter incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977) (citations omitted). The Court finds that the facts alleged in this case are not adequate to support an Eighth Amendment claim for calculated harassment relating to the search of Plaintiff's cell. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim arising from the cell search is granted as to all Defendants, with leave to amend.

         “Defendants object to the Court's recommendation that ‘Defendants' request that the $250, 000 damages amount in his Complaint be stricken should be denied with prejudice as to [Plaintiff's] First Amendment claim.'” (ECF No. 35 at 2) (quoting ECF No. 34 at 33). Defendants “challenged the amount of compensatory damages Plaintiff requested in the Complaint-namely, $250, 000” because “Plaintiff alleges no physical injury[.]” Id.

         Defendants contend that Plaintiff “may recover compensatory . . . damages” for his First Amendment claim “only . . . if he can prove them” by demonstrating the alleged “constitutional deprivation resulted in an injury for which compensation traditionally would have been provided at common law-e.g., physical harm, emotional distress, loss of reputation, or monetary loss.” Id. at 3. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's request for compensatory damages “must be stricken because [Plaintiff] can never recover any damages beyond nominal and punitive damages.” Id. at 4.

         Section 1997e(e) of the Prison Reform Litigation Act (“PLRA”) states that

No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.