# Thedford Leon Kersh v. Josie Gastello

> District Court, C.D. California · November 4, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9981681

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** November 4, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9981681

## Opinion text

Case 2:21-cv-01921-CAS-JDE Document 63 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:362

1 O
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 THEDFORD LEON KERSH, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-01921-CAS (JDE)
)
12 )
Plaintiff, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
13 ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
)
v. ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
14
) JUDGE
)
15 JOSIE GASTELO, )
16 ) )
Defendant. )
17
18
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the records and files
19
herein, including the first amended complaint (Dkt. 43, “FAC”), defendants’
20
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 57 “Mot.”), plaintiff’s opposition brief
21
(Dkt. 58 “Opp.”), defendants’ reply brief (Dkt. 28 “Reply”), the Report and
22
23 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 61, “Report”), and
24 petitioner’s Objections to the Report (Dkt. 62, “Objection”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
25 § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo
26 review of the matters to which objections have been stated. Plaintiff’s assertions
27 and arguments have been reviewed carefully. The Court, however, concludes that
28 nothing set forth in the Objection or otherwise in the record for this case affects,
Case 2:21-cv-01921-CAS-JDE Document 63 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:363

1 alters, or calls into question the findings and analysis set forth in the Report.
2 Therefore, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and recommendations
3 of the Magistrate Judge.
4 Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the California Men’s Colony State
5 Prison (“CMC”). Plaintiff had previously filed a complaint that was dismissed by
6 this Court on April 6, 2022, dkt. 43. Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s first
7 amended complaint against defendants Josie Gastelo, former warden of CMC, and
8
D. Samuel, Chief Deputy Warden of CMC. In the first amended complaint,
9
plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
10
rights by failing to follow state and federal guidelines to reduce prison dorm
11
capacity to provide for six feet of distance between beds, for knowing of the
12
presence of black mold in dorm two, and for allowing plaintiff’s CMC grievance
13
appeal to expire (thereby precluding CMC from being required to respond to his
14
claims). See generally FAC.
15
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), defendants moved for
16
judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the FAC fails to state a
17
constitutional claim and that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See
18
Mot. Here, the Magistrate Judge recommends that defendants’ motion be granted
19
and the FAC be dismissed with prejudice on the basis that plaintiff fails to state a
20
claim. See generally Report.
21
Plaintiff’s Objection essentially centers on the basis that he be granted leave
22
to amend or the opportunity to conduct discovery against defendants, citing recent
23
24 expert testimony and orders in other COVID-19 prison litigation. See Objection at
25
3–6.1
26

1 Plaintiff also claims that because he only received the Magistrate Judge’s
27
Report by mail on the evening of Friday, September 9, 2022 with his objection due
28

2
Case 2:21-cv-01921-CAS-JDE Document 63 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:364

1 The Court finds and concludes that plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
2 To start, judgment on the pleadings is proper if the moving party “clearly
3 establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be
4 resolved and that [the moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
5 Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.
6 1989). Here, as the Magistrate Judge explains, “FAC does not articulate any
7 specific conduct by Defendants or explain how Defendants personally participated
8
in the decision to not reduce dorm capacity.” Id. at 11. “Rather, Plaintiff makes a
9
general allegation that Defendants, in their supervisory capacity as CMC’s
10
wardens, did not do enough to enforce social distancing and abate the spread of
11
COVID-19, causing him to contract COVID.” Id. (citing Burgess v. Newsom,
12
2021 WL 4061611, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2021) (“Although [p]laintiff mentions
13
the inability to social distance, he has failed to allege the causal link between [the
14
warden] and the claimed constitutional violation which must be specifically
15
alleged.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4975140 (E.D. Cal. Oct.
16
25, 2021)).
17
Additionally, the Magistrate Judge noted that the FAC lists other reasonable
18
19
by Monday, September 12, 2022, that the prison’s closure of the law library over
20
that weekend constituted a violation of his equal protection and due process rights.
21
See Objection at 2. However, plaintiff did not request an extension of time, was
22
still able to file papers with the court, and “the facts remain that Plaintiff does have
23
access to the law library and the method of law library access is not an exceptional
24
circumstance unique to Plaintiff as it is common to many prisoners.” Mascrenas v.
25
Wagner, No. 19CV2014-WQH(BLM), 2020 WL 4436358, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3,
26
2020), reconsideration denied, No. 19CV2014-WQH(BLM), 2020 WL 5423889
27
(S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2020).
28
3
ase 2:21-cv-01921-CAS-JDE Document 63 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:36

1 measures CMC implemented in response to COVID-19, such as quarantine,
2 || testing, and dorm-reconfiguration such that CMC’s inability to follow all
3 applicable CDC guidelines does not show that Defendants acted with deliberate
4 || indifference towards Plaintiffs health so long as they instituted reasonable
5 || measures designed to lower inmates’ risk of contracting COVID-19.” Id. at 11-12
6 (citing Hernandez v. Covello, 2022 WL 1308194, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2022)).
7 Any further amendment is futile here because even when taking the FAC’s
8 allegations of fact as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff,
? plaintiff is unable to state a claim under the law. See also Mot. at 12 (“And, so far
10 as Defendants are aware, at the time Plaintiffs claims arose, there was no federal
M case law requiring wardens to reduce dorm capacity to twenty persons—or by any
12 particular amount—in response to COVID-19.”).
IS Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and
4 recommendations set forth in the Report. In accordance with the foregoing, the
: Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and directs that

7 judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.
18 |) Dated: November 4, 2022 taf
19 —__ hiruoten Uh
20 CHRISTINA A.SNYDER
1 United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9981681. Public record. Not legal advice.