1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, No. 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 11 v. ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY 12 CLANDENIN, et al., COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 Defendants. Doc. 31 14 15 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action pursuant to

. Individuals detained pursuant to California 17 Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the 18 meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey,

(9th Cir. 19 2000). This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 14, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and granted 22 plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty 23 (30) days. Doc. 21. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would 24 result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice. Id. On July 31, 2024, 25 following plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the 26 Court, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this action, with 27 prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. 28 Doc. 22. After plaintiff filed a motion for a ninety-day continuance on August 2, 2024, the 1 magistrate judge vacated the findings and recommendations and granted plaintiff a thirty-day 2 extension of time to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Docs. 24, 25. 3 Plaintiff was granted a third extension of time on December 4, 2024. Docs. 29, 30. 4 Plaintiff thereafter did not file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the 5 Court, and on February 25, 2025, the magistrate judge again issued findings and 6 recommendations to dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to obey 7 court orders, and failure to prosecute. Doc. 31. Those findings and recommendations were 8 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 9 fourteen days after service. Id. On March 13, 2025, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s 10 motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file objections. Docs. 32, 33. On April 28, 2025, 11 plaintiff filed late objections. Doc. 34.1 12 In his objections, Plaintiff primarily argues that the findings and recommendations relied 13 on the incorrect standard in considering his Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement 14 claim. Doc. 34. Specifically, the findings and recommendations relied on the objective 15 deliberate indifference standard in Kingsley v. Hendrickson,

(2015), a case 16 involving a claim brought by a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff contends that the correct legal standard 17 applicable to conditions of confinement claims brought by a civil detainee is that provided in 18 Jones v. Blanas,

(9th Cir. 2004). 19 In Jones, the Ninth Circuit held that civil detainees cannot be held in conditions that 20 amount to punishment. Jones,

. “The Fourteenth Amendment requires the 21 government to do more than provide the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’ for non- 22 convicted detainees. Rather, ‘due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment 23 bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.’”

at 931 24 1 In addition to his objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff filed a first amended 25 complaint on April 28, 2025. Doc. 35. However, the magistrate judge’s March 13, 2025 order granting an extension of time for plaintiff to file objections to the findings and recommendations 26 recommending dismissal of his complaint, Doc. 31, also informed plaintiff that, due to his delay 27 and his multiplying of the proceedings, any further amended complaint would not be considered without explicit leave of the Court. See Doc. 33 at 6. Plaintiff was not granted leave to file the 28 first amended complaint. 1 (citations omitted). Punitive conditions of confinement are those that are either expressly 2 intended to punish or those that are “excessive in relation to the alternative purpose.” Demery v. 3 Arpaio,

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish,

(1979)). 4 “Persons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and 5 conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to 6 punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo,

, 321–22 (1982). 7 In determining whether specific conditions constitute punishment, the Ninth Circuit has 8 applied a presumption that a civil detainee is being held in unconstitutionally punitive conditions 9 when said conditions are “identical to, similar to, or more restrictive than, those in which his 10 criminal counterparts are held” or when “an individual awaiting SVPA adjudication is detained 11 under conditions more restrictive than those the individual would face following SVPA 12 commitment.” King v. County of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Jones, 13 393 F.3d at 932–33). Once the presumption is found to apply, “the burden shifts to the defendant 14 to show (1) ’legitimate, non-punitive interests justifying the conditions of [the detainee’s] 15 confinement’ and (2) ’that the restrictions imposed . . . [are] not ‘excessive’ in relation to these 16 interests.’” King,

(quoting Jones,

)). 17 While plaintiff correctly notes that the findings and recommendations relied, in part, on 18 the objective deliberate indifference standard set forth in Kingsley, the magistrate judge also 19 found that plaintiff failed to make a showing that installation of the Norix furniture would amount 20 to “punishment” in violation of Jones. Doc. 31 at 8–9. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument in his 21 objections, plaintiff has presented no more than conclusory allegations that installation of the 22 Norix furniture would meet either of the Jones presumptions that plaintiff is being held in 23 unconstitutionally punitive conditions. The lack of an explanation for the facility’s change to 24 Norix furniture, without more, does not automatically indicate that the motivation was 25 punishment or that there was not a non-punitive interest justifying the change. See King, 885 26 F.3d at 557. Plaintiff alleges only the physical discomfort of a hard plastic chair instead of a 27 padded chair, reduced available storage space, and reduction in privacy from the new cell 28 furniture. Plaintiff fails to make any showing that installation of the new furniture amounts to 1 | punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 3 | novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff's objections, the 4 | Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 5 || proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 25, 2025, Doc. 31, are adopted in 8 full; 9 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiffs failure to state a claim, failure to 10 obey court orders, and failure to prosecute; and 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 12 13 14 | IIS SO ORDERED. _ 15 Dated: _ July 18, 2025 4A : 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28