Antoine LeBlanc v. Debbie Asuncion et al
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 1 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon: Any First Amended Complaint due no later than 11/21/16. (See document for details). (Attachments: # 1 CV-66 CV Rights Complaint Form, # 2 Notice of Dismissal Form) (ib)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTOINE LeBLANC,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
Case No. CV 16-03617 JLS (AFM)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
14
15
DEBBIE ASUNCION,
Defendant.
16
17
18
On May 24, 2016, plaintiff, a state prisoner presently incarcerated at the
19
California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California, filed a pro se civil rights
20
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He subsequently was granted leave to proceed
21
without prepayment of the full filing fee. Plaintiff’s claim arises from incidents that
22
took place while he was incarcerated at the California State Prison – Los Angeles
23
County in Lancaster, California (“CSP-LAC”). (ECF No. 1 at 6.)1 Plaintiff names
24
one defendant in this action – Warden Debbie Asuncion – in her official as well as
25
individual capacity. (Id. at 6.) The Complaint raises one claim pursuant to the First
26
27
28
1
The Court references the electronic version of the Complaint because the
document plaintiff filed does not have consecutive page numbers.
1
Amendment that is alleged to have occurred April 22, 2016, to “ongoing.” (Id.)
2
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary compensation. (Id. at 13-14.)
3
In accordance with the terms of the “Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995”
4
(“PLRA”), the Court has screened the Complaint prior to ordering service for
5
purposes of determining whether the action is frivolous or malicious; or fails to
6
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a
7
defendant who is immune from such relief.
8
1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). The Court’s screening of the pleading under
9
the foregoing statutes is governed by the following standards. A complaint may be
10
dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of
11
a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory.
12
See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); see also
13
Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (when determining whether
14
a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
15
§ 1915(e)(2), the court applies the same standard as applied in a motion to dismiss
16
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)). In determining whether the pleading states a claim on
17
which relief may be granted, its allegations of material fact must be taken as true
18
and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See Love v. United States,
19
915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the “tenet that a court must accept
20
as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
21
conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2),
22
In addition, since plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the
23
allegations of the pleading liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any
24
doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.
25
1988). However, the Supreme Court has held that, “a plaintiff’s obligation to
26
provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
27
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
28
do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
2
1
speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are
2
true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
3
(2007) (internal citations omitted, alteration in original); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
4
678 (To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain
5
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
6
on its face.’ . . . A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
7
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
8
liable for the misconduct alleged.” (internal citation omitted)); Starr v. Baca, 652
9
F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (“the factual allegations that are taken as true must
10
plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the
11
opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued
12
litigation”), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012).
13
After careful review and consideration of the Complaint under the foregoing
14
standards, the Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations appear insufficient to state any
15
claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed
16
with leave to amend. See Rosati, 791 F.3d at 1039 (“A district court should not
17
dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that
18
the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal
19
quotation marks omitted).
20
If plaintiff still desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a
21
First Amended Complaint no later than November 21, 2016, remedying the
22
deficiencies discussed below. Further, plaintiff is admonished that, if he fails to
23
timely file a First Amended Complaint, or fails to remedy the deficiencies of this
24
pleading as discussed herein, the Court will recommend that this action be
25
dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice.2
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff is advised that this Court’s determination herein that the allegations in
the Complaint are insufficient to state a particular claim should not be seen as
3
1
PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2
Plaintiff alleges in the one “claim” raised in this action that the Warden at
3
CSP-LAC violated his “First Amendment right to petition government for redress
4
of grievances by retaliation [sic].” (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Plaintiff alleges that, on
5
May 9, 2016, during a review of an administrative appeal, plaintiff was “given a
6
classification review” where he “found new info [sic] concerning an enemy.” (Id.)
7
Plaintiff alleges that “some unknown entity within this institution created an enemy
8
concern” because of plaintiff’s “filing of multiple lawsuits” and grievances. (Id.)
9
The “enemy concern was created on March 23, 2016, while plaintiff was away from
10
CSP-LAC at a temporary mental health program. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff alleges
11
that the “goal” is to “send [plaintiff] to another . . . institution solely because of
12
these lawsuits.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff also alleges that the documentation falsely
13
claims that he had served a “SHU term within the last 3 years.” (Id.) Further,
14
plaintiff contends that “sending me out of CSP-LAC would make” another of his
15
lawsuits filed in this Court, Case No. CV 15-05174-JLS (AFM) “moot” and
16
defendant “would not have to comply with the pending preliminary injunction”
17
concerning the provision of “pen fillers to indigent inmates.” (Id.)3
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dispositive of that claim. Accordingly, although this Court believes that you have
failed to plead sufficient factual matter in your pleading, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face, you are not required to omit any claim or
defendant in order to pursue this action. However, if you decide to pursue a claim
in a First Amended Complaint that this Court has found to be insufficient, then this
Court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, ultimately will submit to the
assigned district judge a recommendation that such claim be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim, subject to your right at that time to file
Objections with the district judge as provided in the Local Rules Governing Duties
of Magistrate Judges.
3
In Case No. CV 15-05174-JLS (AFM), plaintiff has been given multiple
opportunities to amend his pleading, but, to date, his allegations fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. In addition, the District Court in that case has
denied his requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
No injunctive relief pertaining to plaintiff’s cases in this Court is “pending.”
4
1
Within this same claim, plaintiff also alleges that unspecified “staff have
2
opened my mail/legal” on two dates in April 2016, and that “they have refused to
3
give me blankets” despite his “nine requests.” (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff also alleges a
4
problem with three pieces of mail in unspecified state court actions that required
5
financial information from the prison, but only two pieces were returned to him.
6
Plaintiff then alleges that the “third suit was missing,” but he does not allege which
7
case or cases in which court any of these pieces of mail pertained to. (Id. at 10-11.)
8
Further, plaintiff alleges “they refuse to give me pen fillers so that I can write
9
appeals so I must borrow them still.” (Id. at 10.)4 Plaintiff also alleges that
10
unspecified “library staff” let him “out 30 minutes late every day and then make
11
[him] chose between yard and law library and phone time.”
12
Unspecified “staff” also refused to provide plaintiff with envelopes at an
13
unspecified time so that plaintiff “cannot write [his] family.” (Id.)
(Id. at 11.)
14
Plaintiff alleges that he feels that he is in “immediate danger as staff have
15
intentionally placed [him] in the building with three Correctional Officers” who
16
plaintiff has alleged assaulted him (id. at 11-12), and whom he names in other
17
lawsuits in this Court. See Case No. CV 16-03270-JLS (AFM) and CV 16-03925-
18
JLS (AFM). Plaintiff also states: “I should not have to fear for my life nor move
19
prisons further from my family solely because CSP-LAC wants to violate my
20
constitutional rights.” (Id. at 12.)
21
DISCUSSION
22
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23
24
8(a) and 8(d). Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) states:
25
26
4
27
28
The Court notes that the failure of various prison officials at CSP-LAC to
provide plaintiff, as an indigent prisoner, with free pen fillers is raised in plaintiff’s
Case No. CV 15-05174-JLS (AFM).
5
1
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may
include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
2
3
4
5
6
(Emphasis added).
Further, Rule 8(d)(1) provides: “Each allegation must be
7
simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required.” Although the Court
8
must construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, a plaintiff nonetheless must
9
allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give
10
each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon
11
which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193,
12
199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (a
13
complaint must give defendants fair notice of the claims against them).
14
plaintiff fails to clearly and concisely set forth factual allegations sufficient to
15
provide defendants with notice of which defendant is being sued on which theory
16
and what relief is being sought against them, the pleading fails to comply with Rule
17
8. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v.
18
Northcoast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). Moreover, failure to
19
comply with Rule 8 constitutes an independent basis for dismissal of a complaint
20
that applies even if the claims in a complaint are not found to be wholly without
21
merit. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179; Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673.
If a
22
Initially, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims
23
for monetary damages against any individual defendant in his or her official
24
capacity.
25
individuals against a State and its instrumentalities, unless either the State consents
26
to waive its sovereign immunity or Congress abrogates it. Pennhurst State School
27
& Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1984). In addition, “the eleventh
28
amendment bars actions against state officers sued in their official capacities for
The Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction over suits by
6
1
past alleged misconduct involving a complainant’s federally protected rights, where
2
the nature of the relief sought is retroactive, i.e., money damages.” Bair v. Krug,
3
853 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1988). To overcome this Eleventh Amendment bar, the
4
State’s consent or Congress’ intent must be “unequivocally expressed.” Pennhurst,
5
465 U.S. at 99. While California has consented to be sued in its own courts
6
pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act, such consent does not constitute
7
consent to suit in federal court. See BV Engineering v. University of California,
8
858 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon,
9
473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985) (holding that Art. III, § 5 of the California Constitution
10
does not constitute a waiver of California’s Eleventh Amendment immunity).
11
Finally, Congress has not repealed state sovereign immunity against suits brought
12
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the California Department of Corrections and
13
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is a state agency, it is immune from civil rights claims
14
raised pursuant to § 1983. See Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100 (“This jurisdictional bar
15
applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought.”); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S.
16
781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (the Eleventh Amendment bars claim for injunctive
17
relief against Alabama and its Board of Corrections). Since the only defendant
18
named in the Complaint is an employee of the CDCR, plaintiff may not seek
19
monetary damages against a state employee in her official capacity.
20
In addition, plaintiff appears to be purporting to raise one claim under the
21
First Amendment concerning his right to petition the government, (ECF No. 1 at 8),
22
but it is not clear what the factual basis for such a claim may be. To the extent that
23
plaintiff is purporting to raise a claim concerning his access to the courts, see
24
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987) (“[P]risoners retain the constitutional right
25
to petition the government for the redress of grievances . . . .”), that claim has been
26
raised by plaintiff in Case No. CV 15-05174-JLS (AFM). As set forth in detail in
27
the Court’s Orders dismissing his pleadings with leave to amend in that case (see,
28
e.g, ECF No. 40), plaintiff’s factual allegations are insufficient to establish that the
7
1
acts or omissions of prison officials at CSP-LAC caused an “actual injury” that
2
“hindered his efforts to pursue a [non-frivolous] legal claim.” Phillips v. Hust, 588
3
F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original, internal quotation marks
4
omitted).
5
To the extent that plaintiff is purporting to allege a claim arising from his
6
allegations that, on two occasions in April 2016, “staff” opened his legal mail
7
outside of his presence (ECF No. 1 at 10), plaintiff has not purported to name any
8
defendants in connection with such a claim. In this action, plaintiff has named only
9
the Warden of CSP-LAC as a defendant, but he sets forth no factual allegations
10
against the Warden. Accordingly, plaintiff appears to be seeking to hold Warden
11
Asuncion liable based solely on her supervisory role. However, the Supreme Court
12
has emphasized that “Government officials may not be held liable for the
13
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat
14
superior.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Rather, plaintiff must allege that each defendant
15
“through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id. at
16
676-77 (“each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable
17
for his or her own misconduct”). See also Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207 (a supervisor is
18
liable only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or
19
there exists a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful
20
conduct and the constitutional violation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In his
21
Complaint, plaintiff fails to set forth a short and plain statement of the actions that
22
he alleges Warden Asuncion took that violated a right secured by the United States
23
Constitution.
24
Further, to the extent that plaintiff may be purporting to raise a federal civil
25
rights claim arising from the false creation of an “enemy concern,” (ECF No. 1 at
26
9), not only does plaintiff not name any defendants allegedly responsible for this
27
action, but prisoners do not have a liberty interest in any particular classification
28
level while in prison. See, e.g., Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir.
8
1
2007). The Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process
2
Clause does not protect a prisoner’s alleged liberty interest where a sanction “is
3
within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized
4
the State to impose.” See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976).
5
In addition, to the extent that plaintiff may be purporting to allege a federal
6
civil rights claim arising from his allegation that he is in “fear for my life,” plaintiff
7
sets forth no factual allegations to raise a reasonable inference of any danger, nor
8
does he name any defendants in this action whom he alleges are causing plaintiff to
9
be fearful. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) The Court notes that, to the extent that plaintiff may
10
be alleging that verbal threats by prison officials have caused him to be fearful,
11
threats or verbal harassment do not give rise to a federal civil rights claim. See
12
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended by 135 F.3d 1318
13
(9th Cir. 1998) (verbal harassment is not cognizable as a constitutional deprivation
14
under §1983); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (verbal
15
harassment or abuse is not constitutional deprivation under § 1983); Gaut v. Sunn,
16
810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (prison guards’ threat of bodily harm failed to
17
state a claim under §1983).
18
Finally, to the extent that plaintiff may be purporting to allege a claim for
19
retaliation against Warden Asuncion for interference with plaintiff’s various
20
grievances or civil lawsuits, plaintiff fails to set forth any factual allegations raising
21
a reasonable inference that the Warden took adverse actions against him in
22
retaliation for plaintiff’s filing of inmate grievances or federal lawsuits. An action
23
taken in retaliation for the exercise of a First Amendment right is actionable. See
24
Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802,
25
806 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, filing a grievance with prison officials is a protected
26
activity under the First Amendment. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269
27
(9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff, however, must set forth factual allegations that plausibly
28
suggest a causal connection between plaintiff’s protected conduct and a specific
9
1
adverse action taken by a named defendant.
2
Accordingly, it appears to the Court that plaintiff’s factual allegations in the
3
Complaint as presently alleged, even accepted as true and construed in the light
4
most favorable to plaintiff, are insufficient to nudge any claim against Warden
5
Asuncion “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
6
570.
7
purporting to raise arising from the factual allegations in the Complaint. The Court
8
is mindful that, because plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the
9
allegations of the Complaint liberally and must afford him the benefit of any doubt.
10
See Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; see also Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1158
11
(9th Cir. 2008) (because a plaintiff was proceeding pro se, “the district court was
12
required to ‘afford [him] the benefit of any doubt’ in ascertaining what claims he
13
‘raised in his complaint’”) (alteration in original). That said, the Supreme Court has
14
made it clear that the Court has “no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro
15
se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Noll v. Carlson,
16
809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (“courts should not have to serve as advocates
17
for pro se litigants”).
18
allegations, he must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the
19
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,
20
556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56).
21
22
Moreover, it is unclear to the Court what claim or claims plaintiff is
Although plaintiff need not set forth detailed factual
The Court therefore finds that the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8.
************
23
If plaintiff still desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a
24
First Amended Complaint no later than November 21, 2016, remedying the
25
pleading deficiencies discussed above. The First Amended Complaint should
26
bear the docket number assigned in this case; be labeled “First Amended
27
Complaint”; and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original
28
complaint, or any other pleading, attachment, or document.
10
1
The clerk is directed to send plaintiff a blank Central District civil rights
2
complaint form, which plaintiff is encouraged to utilize. Plaintiff is admonished
3
that he must sign and date the civil rights complaint form, and he must use the
4
space provided in the form to set forth all of the claims that he wishes to assert in a
5
First Amended Complaint.
6
Plaintiff is further admonished that, if he fails to timely file a First Amended
7
Complaint, or fails to remedy the deficiencies of this pleading as discussed herein,
8
the Court will recommend that the action be dismissed with prejudice on the
9
grounds set forth above and for failure to diligently prosecute.
10
In addition, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request
11
a voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12
41(a). The clerk also is directed to attach a Notice of Dismissal form for plaintiff’s
13
convenience.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18
DATED: 10/18/2016
____________________________________
ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?