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.

Pennings v. Barrera

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 26, 2017

OTONIEL TYLER PENNINGS, Plaintiff,
v.
BARRERA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER (1) OVERRULING AND SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 27)

          Hon. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge.

         Presently before the Court are: (1) Defendants Tonya Benjamin and Garrett Stapleton's Motion to Dismiss, (“MTD, ” ECF No. 12); (2) Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising that the Court should grant-in-part and deny-in-part Defendants' MTD, (ECF No. 27); and Defendants' Objections to the R&R, (“R&R Objs., ” ECF No. 28). Plaintiff did not file any Objections to Judge Dembin's R&R or a reply in opposition to Defendants' Objections. After considering the parties' arguments and the law, the Court rules as follows.

         BACKGROUND

         Judge Dembin's R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural histories underlying the instant Motion to Dismiss. (See R&R 1-6[1].) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties regarding a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court “shall 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)(c); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980). In the absence of a timely objection, however, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

         ANALYSIS

         I. Summary of the R&R Conclusion

         On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against various defendants for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's claims stem from events that occurred while he was held at George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) as a subpoenaed witness for an evidentiary hearing in the criminal case of another state prisoner. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that the moving Defendants violated several of his constitutional rights, including those under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, (see generally id.), only some of which Defendants moved to dismiss, (see generally MTD).

         First, Judge Dembin concluded that Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant Benjamin retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment where she allegedly moved him to another, less sanitary cell (Module 5C) for the sole purpose of hindering Plaintiff from continuing to file grievances on behalf of himself and other inmates. (R&R 8-13.) Second, Judge Dembin concluded that Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant Benjamin violated his Eighth Amendment rights where she ordered him placed in Module 5C which, among other things, was covered in feces and had a “constant smell of feces coming out of the ventilation system[, ] . . . [and] continued banging noises.” (Id. at 13-15.) Third, Judge Dembin concluded that Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant Benjamin violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Equal Protection Clause where she intentionally made it difficult for him to contact his family and attorney because of his Jewish religion, and where she allowed and encouraged others to disrespect him for the same. (Id. at 15-18.) Fourth, Judge Dembin concluded that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that Defendant Stapleton violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by confiscating his personal property. (Id. at 18-19.) Fifth, Judge Dembin concluded that Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant Stapleton intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him by taunting and psychologically abusing him for three hours prior to physically assaulting him, including flashing overhead lights and opening/closing/clicking the front and side doors. (Id. at 19-21.) Finally, Judge Dembin concluded that Plaintiff's Complaint and state causes of action were timely filed. (Id. at 21-22.)

         II. Summary of Defendants' Objections

         Defendants object to Judge Dembin's R&R on three grounds. First, Defendants argue that Judge Dembin's conclusion on Plaintiff's retaliation claim is erroneous because Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that Benjamin's actions did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. (R&R Objs. 2-3.) Second, Defendants argue that Judge Dembin erroneously concluded that Plaintiff adequately alleged an equal protection violation against the moving Defendants because other, nonmoving Defendants were the ones who allegedly acted in violation of his rights. (Id. at 3-4.) Third, Defendants argue that Judge Dembin's conclusion on Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim is erroneous because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to distinguish who was actually involved in the alleged outrageous conduct. (Id. at 4-5.)

         III. Court's Analysis

         The Court will review, de novo, each part of Judge Dembin's R&R ...


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.