United States District Court, E.D. California
EARNEST S. HARRIS, Plaintiff,
SEXTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges use of the Guard One Security Check system
at California State Prison-Corcoran
(“CSP-Corcoran”) deprived him of sleep in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Currently before the court
is plaintiff's second motion for an emergency injunction
and his motion to compel.
Allegations of the Second Amended Complaint
is incarcerated at CSP-Corcoran in the security housing unit.
He alleges that defendants are responsible for the
implementation and use of the Guard One Security Check system
there. That system requires officers to touch a metal pipe to
a metal box affixed to each cell door in plaintiff's
housing unit. Plaintiff alleges this occurs every half hour,
all day, every day. As a result of the noise from the
metal-on-metal contact, plaintiff claims he has suffered and
continues to suffer sleep deprivation.
initiated this action in early 2018 in the Fresno division of
this court. With his initial complaint, plaintiff sought an
emergency injunction to modify the Guard One system. The
previously-assigned magistrate judge found plaintiff failed
to state a cognizable claim for relief and recommended that
plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied for
plaintiff's failure to show a likelihood of success on
the merits of this case. (See ECF No. 9.) The
previously-assigned district judge adopted that
recommendation. (ECF No. 18.)
then filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”).
(ECF No. 12.) The court found plaintiff stated cognizable
Eighth Amendment claims and ordered service of the FAC. (ECF
December 5, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss to FAC based on qualified immunity. (ECF No. 30.)
Defendants then answered the complaint. (ECF No. 32.) On
January 10, 2019, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling
Order. (ECF No. 36.)
February 22, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion
to amend the FAC to include one additional defendant. (ECF
No. 41.) Plaintiff's second amended complaint
(“SAC”) is the operative complaint. On April 23,
new defendant Vera filed an answer to the SAC. (ECF No. 44.)
14, defendants moved to stay these proceedings pending the
resolution of an appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit from
an order issued in Rico v. Ducart, 2:17-cv-1402 KJM
DB P. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff Rico raises similar concerns
about the use of the Guard One Security Check system.
Defendants in that case filed an appeal of the court's
denial of qualified immunity to some defendants. On September
11, the previously-assigned magistrate judge recommended
defendants' motion to stay be granted. (ECF No. 52.)
Plaintiff filed objections to that recommendation. (ECF No.
53.) The district judge has not yet ruled on those
October 2, counsel for plaintiff Rico filed a notice of
related cases. (ECF No. 54.) Shortly thereafter, Judge
Mueller issued an order relating the present case to other
cases involving use of Guard One in the California prisons.
This case was then reassigned to Judge Mueller and to the
undersigned magistrate judge. (ECF No. 55.)
FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
seeks either a temporary suspension of the Guard One system
or an order directing that it be used with less frequency
pending the outcome of this case. (ECF No. 57.) ...