(PC) Jackson v. Quick

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CORNEL JACKSON, No. 1:19-cv-01591-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 123) JASON QUICK, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jackson’s conspiracy and access-to-the-court claims and denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jackson’s legal mail claims. (Doc 123). The parties were permitted twenty-one days to file written objections. (Id. at 18). On October 27, 2022, Defendants filed objections, and on November 7, 2022, Jackson filed objections. (Docs. 126, 127). According to 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the parties’ objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court briefly addresses the parties’ objections.

27 Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in so far as a sufficient material dispute exists regarding whether Defendants had opened Jackson’s legal mail in an arbitrary and capricious manner. (Doc. 124 at 2-3.) Defendants argue that one instance of opened legal mail does not meet the standard for arbitrary and capricious. (Id.) However, the magistrate judge did not rely solely on a single piece of mail to reach the conclusion that a material dispute of fact exists. (Doc. 123 at 13-14.) Jackson declared that he received, already open, multiple pieces of mail from his attorneys. (Id.; Doc. 115 at 6.) The declarations of his cellmates further corroborate his allegations. (Doc. 115 at 39, 41.) At the summary judgement stage, it is not the Court’s role to assess the credibility of these statements. See Agosto v. INS, 436 8 U.S. 748, 756 (1978) (“[A] district court generally cannot grant summary judgment based on its assessment of the credibility of the evidence presented.”). The magistrate judge correctly found that the evidence demonstrated a sufficient dispute to deny summary judgment.

11 Turning to Jackson’s objections, he objects to the findings and recommendations in so far as they dismissed his conspiracy and access-to-the-courts claims. (Doc. 127.) Regarding the conspiracy claim, Jackson’s objections primarily focus on restating the allegations made in his complaint and prior briefing. (Id. at 2-8.) The magistrate judge correctly found that Jackson did not allege sufficient facts to support the element of a conspiracy claim which requires the existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights. (Doc. 123 at 14-16.) Jackson did not submit any admissible evidence that showed the Defendants had met or otherwise had a shared understanding or plan to interfere with Jackson’s legal mail. (Id.) With his objections, Jackson submitted two new documents in support of his claims, but neither change the outcome. (Doc. 128.) With respect to the hearing transcript, Jackson only included one page of the transcript. (Id. at 3.) The portion highlighted by Jackson, presumably most relevant to his claims, ends mid-sentence and continues onto pages not submitted to the Court. (Id.) The statement that Jackson’s mail “is being monitored” standing alone, and without surrounding context, does not evidence a conspiracy to improperly open Jackson’s legal mail. (Id.) Regarding Jackson’s inmate grievance form, his statements do not contain any allegations that Defendants had a agreement or meeting of the minds about his legal mail. (Id. at 4.) In addition, Jackson repeats his objection that he was unable to interview witnesses and asks the Court to delay judgment. (Doc. 127 at 3.) However, Jackson had ample time to conduct interviews or take || depositions before the expiration of the non-expert discovery deadline on February 4, 2022. (Doc.

2 | 76at5.)

3 With respect to Jackson’s objections to the dismissal of his access-to-the-courts claims, || these objections again fail to plead any injury that occurred as a result of the prison’s alleged | failure to provide him legal materials. (See Doc. 127 at 9-10.) Jackson must show that the alleged || deprivation of the access to the courts negatively impacted or prejudiced him in litigation. Lewis | v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (“[A]n inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply || by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some | theoretical sense.”).

10 Having considered the parties’ objections and finding none have merit, the Court finds | that the magistrate judge did not err in her findings and recommendations. Thus, the Court | ORDERS: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 13, 2022, (Doc. 123), are 14 ADOPTED IN FULL.

15 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 108) is GRANTED in part to 16 the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jackson’s conspiracy and access-to-the-court 17 claims and DENIED in part to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jackson’s legal 18 mail claims.

19 3. This action proceeds only on Jackson’s claims that Defendants Jason Quick, 20 Elizabeth Alvarez, A. Rossette, Lt. Followill, Lisette Lopez, Dominic Ramos, 21 Hermina Marley, and Carmela Prudente violated his First and Sixth Amendment 22 rights regarding his legal mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: _ December 30, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE