Summary
finding pretrial detainee had no due process right to a grievance procedure
Summary of this case from Zaragosa v. PerezOpinion
No. 2:18-cv-1089 TLN KJN P
06-28-2018
STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. STEVE MOORE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, housed in the San Joaquin County Jail, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
As discussed below, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
I. Standards
A. Screening Standards
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless."); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555. However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
B. Civil Rights Standards
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). "A person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Although supervisory government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009), they may be individually liable under Section 1983 if there exists "either (1) [the supervisor's] personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation; or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation." Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor's wrongful conduct and the violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including by demonstrating that a supervisor's own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff's injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011); Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff must also show that the supervisor had the requisite state of mind to establish liability, which turns on the requirement of the particular claim -- and, more specifically, on the state of mind required by the particular claim -- not on a generally applicable concept of supervisory liability. Oregon State University Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2012).
II. Plaintiff's Complaint
In the 145-page complaint, plaintiff names the Sheriff/Coroner of San Joaquin County and nine other law enforcement officers, as well as two John Doe defendants. Plaintiff alleges that on or about August and September of 2017, he was placed in the "hole" or administrative segregation without due process, including no notice or a hearing, and had not sustained a disciplinary infraction. (ECF No. 1 at 11-14.) Plaintiff's legal claims are described as defendants refused to fix the jail's grievance procedure; harassed plaintiff and fabricated documents; fabricated write-ups and attempted to stop plaintiff from filing his class complaint and grievances; failed to correct misconduct; threatened plaintiff for filing grievances; employed a campaign of harassment, and retaliated against plaintiff for filing grievances. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment; injunctive relief; an order for discovery; and monetary damages. Plaintiff appends an "Exhibit A," in which he and 47 other inmates attempt to challenge their housing in the San Joaquin County Jail, arguing that they are denied equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they have been housed in the "hole" or administrative segregation without due process, and absent disciplinary reasons, and denied full access to telephones, recreation, weekly clean linen, grievance procedures, and equal programming. (ECF No. 1 at 30.)
III. Discussion
A. Class Action
Initially, the court addresses plaintiff's attempt to bring this action as a class action. Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D. D.C. 1976). This action, therefore, will not be construed as a class action and instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff Rodriguez.
B. Misjoinder
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), individuals may be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief asserted against them arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Id., See also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Unrelated claims against unrelated defendants belong in different suits"). If unrelated claims are improperly joined, the court may dismiss them without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Michaels Building Co. v. Ameritrust Co., 848 F.2d 674, 682 (6th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissing under Rule 21 of certain defendants where claims against those defendants did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrences, as required by Rule 20(a)).
In the instant pleading, plaintiff has raised multiple, unrelated causes of action against various defendants. Plaintiff is advised that he cannot pursue unrelated causes of action unless they are all raised against the same defendant. Therefore, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend.
C. Rights of Pretrial Detainees
Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the events at issue. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of pretrial detainees. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979). "[U]nder the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law." Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 535). During the period of detention prior to trial, a pretrial detainee may be properly subject to the conditions of the jail so long as they do not amount to punishment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 536-37. "Unless there is evidence of intent to punish, then those conditions or restrictions that are reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives do not violate a pretrial detainee's right to be free from punishment." Hatter v. Dyer, 154 F. Supp. 3d 940, 945 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 584 (1984) ). "While a pretrial detainee's right to be free from punishment is grounded in the Due Process Clause, courts borrow from Eighth Amendment jurisprudence when analyzing the rights of pretrial detainees." Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008).
D. No Due Process Right to a Grievance Procedure
The Due Process Clause protects plaintiff against the deprivation of liberty without the procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). However, plaintiff has no stand-alone due process rights related to the administrative grievance process. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). A prison official's denial of a grievance does not itself violate the constitution. Evans v. Skolnik, 637 Fed. App'x 285, 288 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. dism'd, 136 S. Ct. 2390 (2016). Thus, the denial, rejection, or cancellation of a grievance does not constitute a due process violation. See, e.g., Wright v. Shannon, 2010 WL 445203, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (plaintiff's allegations that prison officials denied or ignored his inmate appeals failed to state a cognizable claim under the First Amendment); Towner v. Knowles, 2009 WL 4281999 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009) (plaintiff's allegations that prison officials screened out his inmate appeals without any basis failed to indicate a deprivation of federal rights); Williams v. Cate, 2009 WL 3789597, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) ("Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in the vindication of his administrative claims."). Thus, plaintiff should not renew his due process claims concerning the jail's grievance procedures.
E. Harassment or Threats
In addition, allegations of harassment, embarrassment, and defamation are not cognizable under section 1983. Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981), aff'd sub nom. Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983); see also Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1982) (allegations of harassment with regards to medical problems not cognizable); Ellingburg v. Lucas, 518 F.2d 1196, 1197 (8th Cir. 1975) (Arkansas state prisoner does not have cause of action under § 1983 for being called obscene name by prison employee); Batton v. North Carolina, 501 F.Supp. 1173, 1180 (E.D. N.C. 1980) (mere verbal abuse by prison officials does not state claim under § 1983). Nor are allegations of mere threats cognizable. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (mere threat does not constitute constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked threat was for purpose of denying access to courts compel contrary result).
F. Alleged False Reports
A "complaint alleging that an officer filed a false report, by itself, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Koch v. Austin, 2006 WL 403818, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2006), adopted by 2006 WL 842585 (Mar. 28, 2006). A cognizable claim is stated only if there is evidence that the false report was retaliatory, or the inmate is not afforded procedural due process in the hearing on the disciplinary charge. See Pratt v. Rowland, 769 F.Supp. 1128, 1134 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (filing false report states a claim only if retaliatory); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 953 (2d Cir. 1986) (guards' "filing of unfounded charges did not give rise to a per se constitutional violation actionable under section 1983"); Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (claim based on falsity of charges, standing alone, did not state a constitutional claim), and Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir. 1984) (guards' fabrication of evidence does not state a claim if procedural protections are provided during disciplinary hearing).
G. Potential Causes of Action
It appears that plaintiff may be able to state potentially cognizable claims based on the following causes of action, provided plaintiff can allege facts meeting such standards. In addition, plaintiff may only raise such claims in the same action if each claim arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).
1. Housing in Ad Seg
The Ninth Circuit has explained the standards governing restrictions on inmates held prior to conviction:
Pretrial detainees have a substantive due process right against restrictions that amount to punishment. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). This right is violated if restrictions are "imposed for the purpose of punishment." Bell, 441 U.S. at 535, 99 S. Ct. 1861. There is no constitutional infringement, however, if restrictions are "but an incident of some other legitimate government purpose." Id. In such a circumstance, governmental restrictions are permissible. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747, 107 S. Ct. 2095.Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2003) (a restriction on a pretrial detainee amounts to impermissible punishment if it is not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 524 (9th Cir. 1996) (pretrial detainees may not be subjected to disciplinary segregation without a due process hearing).
In distinguishing between a permissible restriction and impermissible punishment, we first examine whether the restriction is based upon an express intent to inflict punishment. Id. . . .
We next consider whether punitive intent can be inferred from the nature of the restriction. This determination will generally turn upon "'whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether [the restriction] appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to it].'" Bell, 441 U.S. at 539, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69, 83 S. Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963)) (alterations in original). Put more simply, "if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to 'punishment.'" Bell, 441 U.S. at 539, 99 S. Ct. 1861.
However, where the placement is administrative in nature, the following standards apply:
Due process requires that "[p]rison officials must hold an informal nonadversary hearing within a reasonable time after the prisoner is segregated" for administrative purposes. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). In addition, "prison officials must inform the prisoner of the charges against the prisoner or their reasons for segregation" and "allow the prisoner to present his view." Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1100. The prisoner, however, is not entitled to "detailed written notice of charges, representation of counsel or counsel-substitute, an opportunity to present witnesses, or a written decision describing the reasons for placing the prisoner in administrative segregation." Id. at 1100-01.
2. Retaliation
Allegations of retaliation against an inmate's First Amendment rights may support a § 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 5527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Boiorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d at 807. A retaliation claim requires "five basic elements: (1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). This standard also applies to pretrial detainees. See e.g., Edmundson v. Flathead Cty. Sheriff Dep't, 654 Fed. App'x 264 (9th Cir. 2016); Williams v. Madrid, 609 Fed. App'x 421 (9th Cir. 2015).
IV. Request for Discovery
In the relief section of his complaint, plaintiff requested multiple court orders requiring discovery. Plaintiff is advised that he should not seek discovery through his pleading; rather, once the court finds he states a cognizable civil rights claim, and defendants have filed an answer, the court will issue an order addressing discovery. Plaintiff should refrain from including his request for discovery in any amended complaint.
V. Leave to Amend
Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. The court, however, grants leave to file an amended complaint.
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See, e.g., West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. at 371. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d at 743. Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) ("an 'amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.'" (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
Plaintiff is not required to provide evidence or exhibits with his amended complaint.
VI. Conclusion
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the San Joaquin County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith.
3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:
a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and
b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint."
Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. Dated: June 28, 2018
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /rodr1089.14n
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order filed__________.
__________ Amended Complaint DATED:
/s/_________
Plaintiff