William J. Jones v. Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility II et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached. Plaintiff is fur ther advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiffs' convenience. (See document for further details). (mr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WILLIAM J. JONES,
11
Case No. CV 18-3023 AB (SS)
Plaintiff,
12
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
v.
13
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
CORCORAN SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT FACILITY II, et al.,
14
15
LEAVE TO AMEND
Defendants.
16
17
I.
18
INTRODUCTION
19
20
21
22
On April 3, 2018,1 Plaintiff William J. Jones (“Plaintiff”),
a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed
a
civil
rights
complaint
pursuant
to
42
U.S.C.
§ 1983.
23
The “mailbox rule” announced by the Supreme Court in Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to § 1983 cases. See Douglas
v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). Pursuant to the
mailbox rule, pro se prisoner legal filings are deemed filed on
the date the prisoner delivers the document to prison officials
for forwarding to the court clerk.
Id.
Here, the Complaint’s
Proof of Service indicates that Plaintiff sent the Complaint on
April 3, 2018.
1
24
25
26
27
28
1
(“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1 at 36).
On May 21, 2018, because it
2
appeared that Plaintiff previously had filed numerous meritless
3
cases, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause Why This Court
4
Should Not Deem Plaintiff A Vexatious Litigant.
5
7).
6
reviewing the response, the Court vacated the OSC on July 12, 2018.
7
(Dkt. Nos. 10).
8
to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fee.
Plaintiff responded on June 4, 2018.
(“OSC,” Dkt. No.
(Dkt. No. 9).
After
The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for Leave
(Dkt. No. 12).
9
10
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28
11
U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which requires district courts to perform an
12
initial screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner
13
seeks redress from a governmental entity or employee.
14
may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion, before service of
15
process if it concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or
16
malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
17
granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
18
immune from such relief.
19
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
20
For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint
21
with leave to amend.2
This Court
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2); see also Lopez
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A magistrate judge may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without the approval of a district judge. See McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that “the dismissal of
a complaint with leave to amend is a non-dispositive matter”).
Consistent with McKeever, the Court concludes that its Order
Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend is a non-dispositive
Order. However, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72,
if Plaintiff disagrees, he may file an objection with the District
2
2
1
II.
2
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
3
4
Plaintiff sues thirteen Defendants:
Treatment
Facility
5
Abuse
6
Sherman (“Sherman”); (3) Captain W. Cotter (“Cotter”); (4) Captain
7
M Solario (“Solario”); (5) Lieutenant Ward (“Ward”); (6) Sergeant
8
Leahy
9
Ibarra (“Ibarra”); (9) Correctional Officer Coffman (“Coffman”);
(“Leahy”);
(7)
Correctional
II
(“the
(1) Corcoran Substance
Sergeant
Officer
Facility”);
Roacha
Cribbs
(2) Warden
(“Roacha”);
(8) Sergeant
10
(10)
11
Officer Heavener or Heavenly (“Heavener/ly”); (12) Correctional
12
Officer Sasin (“Sasin”); and (13) Correctional Officer Reveles
13
(“Reveles”).
14
Defendants
15
capacities.
(Complaint at 2-7).
are
sued
in
both
(“Cribbs”);
Stu
(11) Correctional
Aside from the Facility, all
their
individual
and
official
(Id.).
16
17
The Complaint raises four claims.
The first three concern
18
allegations that Defendants took his property. Specifically, Claim
19
1 asserts that Plaintiff was deprived of his property in violation
20
of the Fifth Amendment.
21
he alleges that when he went to pick up his property at Receiving
22
and Release (“R&R”) after being transferred to the Facility, Cribbs
23
informed him that he had too much property.
24
gave him a box to store his property in, and Plaintiff was to send
25
home or discard whatever did not fit.
(Id. at 8-20).
In support of this claim,
(Id. at 9).
(Id.).
Cribbs
When Plaintiff
26
27
28
Judge.
2015).
See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir.
3
1
complained that he was entitled to “one extra cubit [sic] foot of
2
property,” Cribbs, Coffman and Sasin “began to plunder Plaintiff’s
3
property.”
4
television, explaining that “this is a bubble T.V. it is not allowed
5
here.”
6
donate it, or have it destroyed.
7
that Reveles and Sasin later stole a number of other items from
8
him.
9
that when Plaintiff complained, upon being transferred to the
10
Facility, that he was not supposed to be housed in a dorm setting
11
because he “had 58 points . . . [and] was a third-striker [with]
12
life,” Heavener/ly failed to respond and correct the mistake.
13
at 8).
(Id. at 10).
(Id.).
Later, Coffman removed Plaintiff’s
Coffman gave Plaintiff the option to send it home,
(Id. at 14-15).
(Id.).
Plaintiff also alleges
In addition, Plaintiff alleges in Claim 1
(Id.
14
15
In Claim 2, Plaintiff asserts that he was deprived of his
16
religious artifacts in violation of the First Amendment.
(Id. at
17
21-25).
18
religious necklace, prayer rug, tallith and matching yarmulke, and
19
Ibarra told him the necklace was “1/16 of an inch too big.” (Id.
20
at 11).
21
property home.
22
with a “pre-paid bulk rate postage,” however, Cribbs told him he
23
could not “use postage stamps to send property home” because he
24
needed “money on the books.”
He alleges that Coffman and Sasin confiscated Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff was provided a form to send the confiscated
(Id.).
When he attempted to send his property home
(Id.).
25
26
27
In Claim 3, Plaintiff asserts that he was subject to an
unreasonable
search
and
seizure
28
4
in
violation
of
the
Fourth
1
Amendment, based on the alleged actions described above.
2
(Id. at
26-31).
3
4
In Claim 4, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of access
5
to the court in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(Id. at
6
32-33).
7
that his property would be destroyed if he “did not get funds put
8
on it’s books.”
9
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)
He claims that on June 28, 2018, Cribbs sent him a notice
(Id. at 12).
In response, Plaintiff filed a
10
Form 602 to appeal the alleged mishandling of his property.
(Id.).
11
He alleges that he then conferred with Cotter, Ward and Leahy, who
12
arranged for Plaintiff “to swap out [his] property.”
13
On July 29, 2018, when Plaintiff thought he was going to R&R to
14
retrieve his property, he was refused service by Cribbs and Ibarra.
15
(Id. at 12-13).
16
for his CDCR Form 602 on August 2, 2017, but felt that Reveles
17
“interrupted and muddied the waters with rhetoric that fell outside
18
the scope of the issues at hand.”
(Id. at 13).
Plaintiff states that he was provided a hearing
(Id. at 14).
19
20
Plaintiff
seeks
$249,833.45
in
compensatory
damages
21
($215,000.00 against Defendants and $34,833.45 in property loss)
22
and $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.
(Id. at 34-35).
23
24
III.
25
DISCUSSION
26
27
The Court must dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
28
1915A(b) because it violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
5
1
among
various
other
defects.
However,
because
it
is
not
2
“absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not
3
be cured by amendment,” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th
4
Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), the
5
Court gives Plaintiff leave to amend his claims.
6
7
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
8(a)(2)
requires
that
a
8
complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim
9
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give
10
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
11
upon which it rests.’”
12
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).
13
violated when a pleading “says too little,” and “when a pleading
14
says too much.”
15
2013) (emphasis in original).
16
obligation to give liberal construction to the filings of pro se
17
litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims made by
18
inmates. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.
19
2013); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 511 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
20
curiam).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
Rule 8 may be
Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.
However, the courts also have an
21
22
The
Complaint
fails
to
comply
with
Rule
8
because
its
23
allegations are repetitive and excessive.
24
repeats irrelevant facts throughout the Complaint, including how
25
“Plaintiff was not supposed to be in a dorm setting [because he]
26
had 58 points.”
27
been incorrect to house Plaintiff in a dorm setting, it has no
28
apparent relevance to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the
(Complaint at 8-9, 12-14).
6
Plaintiff continuously
Although it may have
1
First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2
his claims, Plaintiff should only allege facts that are relevant
3
and give rise to a § 1983 action, including that Defendants are
4
acting under color of law, what their specific actions were, and
5
how their actions directly violated his constitutional rights under
6
the
7
allegations render the pleading confusing and violate Rule 8’s
8
requirement of a “short and plain statement of the claim.”
9
e.g., Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1108.
Eighth
Amendment.
Excessive,
To properly plead
unnecessary
and
irrelevant
See,
In addition, because Plaintiff is
10
not required to provide evidence supporting his claims at this
11
stage of the litigation, it is unnecessary for him to attach
12
extensive exhibits.
13
14
The Complaint also fails to comply with Rule 8 due to its
15
unsupported conclusory allegations.
Specifically, paragraphs 39
16
through 77 provide nothing more than a “formulaic recitation of
17
the elements” of a § 1983 claim.
18
550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Rule
19
8 . . . does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it
20
demands more than an unadorned, the–defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
21
accusation.” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).
(Complaint at 8, 17-33); Twombly,
22
23
Although
the
Complaint
does
provide
specific
allegations
24
regarding the conduct of each listed Defendant, these fail to
25
support any § 1983 claims.
26
a plaintiff must show either the defendant’s direct, personal
27
participation in the constitutional violation, or some sufficient
28
causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the alleged
To establish a civil rights violation,
7
1
violation.
See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.
2
2011).
3
Defendants personally violated any constitutional rights.
4
example, the Complaint’s only reference to Heavener/ly is that he
5
left Plaintiff to be housed in a dorm setting at the Facility and
6
instructed Plaintiff that he would receive his property “later”
7
because he had “to[o] many boxes.”
8
as to Cotter, Ward and Leahy, Plaintiff states merely that they
9
met with Plaintiff and addressed his concerns by taking appropriate
The
Complaint’s
factual
allegations
do
not
(Complaint at 8).
show
how
For
Similarly,
10
administrative measures to rectify the situation.
11
The
12
Plaintiff that he was being transferred,” affirming Plaintiff’s
13
own contention that he inappropriately housed.
14
of these allegations show violations of constitutional rights.
15
Because the Complaint violates Rule 8, it is dismissed with leave
16
to amend.
only
mention
of
Solario,
moreover,
was
that
(Id. at 13).
he
informed
(Id. at 14).
None
17
18
IV.
19
CONCLUSION
20
21
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with
22
leave to amend.
If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action,
23
he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum
24
and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint.
25
amended complaint, Plaintiff shall cure the defects described
26
above.
27
allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted
28
in the Complaint.
Plaintiff
shall
not
include
new
defendants
In any
or
new
The First Amended Complaint, if any, shall be
8
1
complete in itself and shall not refer in any manner to the original
2
Complaint.
3
Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this action.
Its caption page shall bear the designation “First
4
5
The First Amended Complaint should be short and concise.
In
6
any amended complaint, Plaintiff should confine his allegations to
7
those operative facts supporting each of his claims.
8
advised that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all
9
that is required is a “short and plain statement of the claim
Plaintiff is
10
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
11
strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint
12
form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached.
13
In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify the nature of
14
each separate legal claim and the Defendant (by name) against whom
15
the
16
allegations support each separate claim.
17
encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit irrelevant
18
details.
19
include legal argument.
claim
is
asserted,
and
make
clear
what
Plaintiff is
specific
factual
Plaintiff is strongly
It is not necessary for Plaintiff to cite case law or
20
21
Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file
22
a First Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies
23
described above, will result in a recommendation that this action
24
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey Court
25
orders
26
Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue
27
this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of
28
Dismissal
pursuant
in
to
Federal
accordance
with
Rule
of
Federal
9
Civil
Rule
of
Procedure
Civil
41(b).
Procedure
1
41(a)(1).
A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiffs’
2
convenience.
3
instructed to clearly state whether he is dismissing the entire
4
action or only certain claims or certain Defendants.
If Plaintiff utilizes the Notice of Dismissal, he is
5
6
DATED:
August 17, 2018
7
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
THIS DECISION IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN LEXIS, WESTLAW OR
12
ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
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?