Johnson v. CTF Soledad State Prison
- Edward Davila
- 5:16-cv-05548-EJD
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Johnson v. CTF Soledad State Prison, Judge Davila accepted prior recommendations and dismissed the action with prejudice after repeated pleading failures.
Cedric Chester Johnson, whose § 1983 action was dismissed with prejudice after the court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations; John F. Klopfenstein was removed as counsel of record.
What happened
Cedric Chester Johnson, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights case under federal law alleging inadequate medical care. He appeared to base his claims on the failure to provide a vision test and alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment and disability law.
The magistrate judge gave Johnson multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, but each version was found insufficient. The court also reviewed rulings on his requests to proceed without paying fees, obtain appointed counsel, seek reconsideration, and retain that fee status on appeal.
Judge Edward J. Davila accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, removed John F. Klopfenstein as Johnson’s counsel of record, and dismissed the action for failure to state a cognizable claim, with prejudice as to the second amended complaint. The court denied further leave to amend and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. CTF Soledad State Prison · No. 5:16-cv-05548-EJD
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 14, 2022
Background
Cedric Chester Johnson, identified in the opinion as a California inmate at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate medical care. His allegations concerned vision impairment and, among other things, the failure to provide a vision test. The pleadings appeared to assert an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim and a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Procedural history
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James screened Johnson’s original complaint and found that it did not state a claim that could proceed. She allowed him to amend. She later found the amended complaint deficient, dismissed it with leave to amend, granted Johnson’s motion for reconsideration, and allowed him another opportunity to plead his claims in a second amended complaint.
Judge James then found that the second amended complaint still did not clearly explain what happened, when it happened, what each defendant did or failed to do, or how the conduct violated federal law. The complaint and attached appeal records did not adequately allege that any defendant acted with the mental state required for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The opinion also states that Johnson had not adequately alleged disability discrimination or named a proper public-entity defendant for an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
Because the magistrate judge lacked authority to take dispositive action without the required consent of all parties, including unserved defendants, Judge Davila treated her prior rulings as proposed findings and recommendations. Johnson was given an opportunity and multiple extensions to object, but he filed no objections. The court therefore reviewed the record for clear error.
Rulings
Judge Davila found no clear error and accepted the proposed findings and recommendations concerning Johnson’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees, for appointment of counsel, for reconsideration, and concerning revocation of his fee status on appeal. Those recommendations became orders of the district court.
The court also accepted the recommendations concerning the complaints. It accepted that the original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, the amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The court denied further leave to amend because Johnson had already received multiple opportunities and detailed explanations of the deficiencies.
The court ordered the clerk to remove John F. Klopfenstein as Johnson’s counsel of record because the record showed that no formal attorney-client agreement had been reached. Johnson was to proceed without a lawyer. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.