Tobias A Frank v. Derrick Schultz et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM 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 further advised th at 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 Plaintiff's convenience. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM, # 2 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL FORM) (mr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TOBIAS A. FRANK,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
DERRICK SCHULTZ, et al.,
15
Defendants
NO. EDCV 12-1848 JAK (SS)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
16
17
18
I.
19
INTRODUCTION
20
21
On February 11, 2013, Plaintiff Tobias A. Frank, a federal prisoner
22
proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging violations of his civil
23
rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
24
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619
25
(1971).
26
dismissed with leave to amend.1
(Dkt. No. 12).
For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is
27
1
28
Magistrate judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without approval of the district judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d
795, 795 (9th Cir. 1991).
1
Congress mandates that district courts initially screen civil
2
complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress from a governmental entity
3
or employee.
4
complaint, or any portions thereof, before service of process if the
5
Court concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2)
6
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks
7
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
8
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1)-(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-
9
27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
This Court may dismiss such a
28
10
11
II.
12
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
13
14
The Complaint names as defendants three employees of the Federal
15
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”): (1) Derrick Schultz, a correctional counselor
16
at Victorville Med. II; (2) R. Byrd, a disciplinary hearing officer at
17
Victorville Med. II; and (3) Juan D. Castillo, the Western Regional
18
Director of the BOP.
19
their individual and official capacities.
(Complaint at 1).
Defendants are sued in both
(Id.).
20
21
While Plaintiff’s specific claims are not entirely clear, the
22
gravamen of the Complaint appears to argue that Defendants violated
23
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by unlawfully imposing administrative
24
sanctions on him for serving as a witness to the signing of another
25
prisoner’s legal documents. Plaintiff contends that on or about May 24,
26
2012, Defendant Schultz, in reviewing the institutional mail, observed
27
that Plaintiff had signed another inmate’s legal documents as a witness.
28
(Id. at 2).
Although Plaintiff asserts that no one ever told him that
2
1
such conduct was prohibited, Defendant Schultz filed an incident report
2
in which he stated that by signing the other inmate’s documents,
3
Plaintiff had been in possession of unauthorized material in violation
4
of Code 305’s broad prohibition on the possession by an inmate of
5
“anything unauthorized.”
6
Defendant Byrd on or about May 31, 2012. (Id.).
(Id.).
The incident report was referred to
7
8
9
A disciplinary hearing was held on July 6, 2012 in which Defendants
Schultz and Byrd found Plaintiff guilty of violating Code 305.
(Id. at
10
2; id., Exh. C).
Plaintiff’s conviction appears to have been based
11
solely on Defendants’ belief that “Plaintiff’s signature . . . on the
12
documents means that Plaintiff possessed the documents at some point in
13
time.” (Id. at 3).
14
statement of the specific evidence Defendants relied on and the reasons
15
for the disciplinary actions taken.
16
Defendant Byrd revoked fourteen days of Plaintiff’s good-time credits
17
and three months of commissary visits and visitation rights.
18
3).
19
Defendant Byrd expunged the incident reports of the two other inmates
20
who were charged for the same conduct. (Id.).
However, Plaintiff was not provided with a written
(Id. at 2).
As punishment,
(Id. at
Morever, Plaintiff alleges that even though he was punished,
21
22
Plaintiff appealed his conviction to Defendant Castillo.
(Id.).
23
On September 20, 2012, Defendant Castillo granted partial relief and
24
expunged Plaintiff’s incident report. (Id., Exh. C). However, Plaintiff
25
alleges that despite the expungement, Defendants failed to restore
26
27
28
3
1
Plaintiff’s forfeited good-time credits and visitation and commissary
2
privileges.2
(Complaint at 3).
3
4
III.
5
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
6
7
Plaintiff claims that by imposing sanctions for signing legal
8
documents,
Defendants
Schultz
and
Byrd
violated
9
Amendment rights of expression and association.
Plaintiff’s
First
(Complaint at 4).
10
Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Schultz and Byrd denied
11
him due process of law by failing to give fair notice or warning
12
regarding the prohibited conduct.
13
Defendants Schultz and Byrd failed to provide any evidence of guilt,
14
reasons for the disciplinary actions taken, or a written statement of
15
the evidence they relied upon.
(Id.).
Also, Plaintiff claims that
(Id.).
16
17
Lastly, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Byrd and Castillo violated
18
Plaintiff’s right to equal protection.
19
contends that Defendant Byrd violated his right to equal protection by
20
expunging the incident reports of the other two inmates who were charged
21
for
22
Plaintiff argues that Defendant Castillo violated Plaintiff’s right to
the
same
offense
while
finding
(Id.).
Specifically, Plaintiff
Plaintiff
guilty.
Moreover,
23
24
2
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff later contended in his Response to the Court’s February
12, 2013 Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff’s Claims Are Not Heck-Barred
and in his Objections to the Court’s March 18, 2013 Report and
Recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute that his
credits and privileges were in fact fully restored on October 3, 2012,
nearly two weeks before Plaintiff signed the instant Complaint. (Dkt.
No. 27 at 1; Dkt. No. 29 at 2; see also Complaint at 5).
4
1
equal
protection
by
failing
to
restore
Plaintiff’s
credits
2
privileges after expunging the incident report.
3
Plaintiff claims he was denied an equal opportunity to receive visits
4
and to shop at the commissary like other inmates.
(Id.).
and
As such,
(Id. at 5).
5
6
Plaintiff contends that he now suffers from emotional distress,
7
depression, anxiety, and an impaired state of mind due to Defendants’
8
actions.
9
compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000 against Defendants
10
Schultz and Byrd jointly and severally, $50,000 against Defendant
11
Castillo,
12
Defendants jointly and severally, and recovery of his costs in this
13
suit.
(Id.
at
punitive
4-5).
damages
Plaintiff
in
the
requests
amount
of
declaratory
$150,000
relief,
against all
(Id. at 5).
14
15
IV.
16
DISCUSSION
17
18
Pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
1915A(b),
the
Court
must
dismiss
19
Plaintiff’s Complaint due to defects in pleading.
20
civil
21
complaints unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be
22
cured by amendment.
23
Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend, as indicated below.
24
\\
25
\\
26
\\
27
\\
28
\\
rights
cases,
however,
must
be
given
Pro se litigants in
leave
See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128-29.
5
to
amend
their
Accordingly, the
1
A.
Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Against Defendants In Their
Official Capacities
2
3
4
A suit for damages against federal employees in their official
5
capacity is functionally a suit against the United States.
Gilbert v.
6
DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985).
7
action against a federal defendant under Bivens may be brought only
8
against an offending individual officer or officers, not the United
9
States or its agencies.
However, a civil rights
Correctional Services Corp. V. Malesko, 534
10
U.S. 61, 72, 122 S. Ct. 515, 151 L. Ed. 2d 456 (2001); id. at 70-71
11
(explaining that because the “purpose of Bivens is to deter individual
12
federal
13
“deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost” if the Court
14
“were to imply a damages action directly against federal agencies”). As
15
such, no cause of action is available under Bivens against federal
16
employees sued in their official capacities.
17
Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250, 1257 (9th Cir. 2008).
officers
from
committing
constitutional
violations,”
the
Ibrahim v. Dept. of
18
19
Here, the Complaint names as defendants three employees of the
20
Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Complaint states that “each defendant is
21
sued individually and in his official capacity.”
22
However, as stated above, no cause of action is available under Bivens
23
against federal employees in their official capacities.
24
the Complaint must be dismissed.
25
\\
26
\\
27
\\
28
\\
6
(Complaint at 1).
Accordingly,
1
B.
Plaintiff Fails To State An Equal Protection Claim
2
3
The Equal Protection Clause requires the government to treat all
4
similarly situated people equally.
5
Corrections and Rehabilitation, 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013).
6
This does not mean, however, that all prisoners must receive identical
7
treatment and resources.
8
claim, a plaintiff typically must allege facts plausibly showing that
9
the defendant acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate based upon
(Id.).
Hartman v. California Dept. of
To prevail on an Equal Protection
10
the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class.
(Id.).
However,
11
courts have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a
12
“class of one” where the plaintiff alleges that he or she has been
13
intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and
14
that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.
15
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S. Ct. 1073, 145
16
L. Ed. 2d 1060 (2000).
17
18
Here, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his right to equal
19
protection when they expunged the other inmates’ incident reports for
20
the same offense of which they found Plaintiff guilty and failed to
21
restore
22
However, as stated above, the government is not obligated to treat all
23
inmates identically.
24
Defendants acted with the intent to discriminate against Plaintiff or
25
explain why there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment
26
between Plaintiff and the other inmates.
27
must be dismissed with leave to amend.
Plaintiff’s
credits
and
privileges.
(Complaint
at
3-5).
Moreover, the Complaint does not allege that
28
7
Accordingly, the Complaint
1
C.
The Complaint Fails To Satisfy Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8
2
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint
4
contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
5
pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair
6
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
7
Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twonbly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167
8
L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
9
required, the Rule does call for sufficient factual matter, accepted as
10
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
11
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d
12
868.
13
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
14
liable for the misconduct alleged.” (Id.).
Although detailed factual allegations are not
“A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content
15
16
The Complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8.
17
example, it is unclear which claims, exactly, Plaintiff is attempting to
18
assert against Defendant Castillo because Castillo in fact granted
19
Plaintiff the relief he sought by expunging the incident report from
20
Plaintiff’s record.
21
in the Complaint appear to contradict Plaintiff’s assertions in other
22
filings related to the same incident.
23
in separate filings that his claims are not Heck-barred because his
24
credits and privileges were fully restored following expungement of the
25
incident report.
26
Complaint, however, Plaintiff states that Defendants “failed to restore
27
Plaintiff’s
28
privilege[s] [even] after the incident report had been expunged.”
(Id. at 3; id., Exh. C).
Moreover, the allegations
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts
(Dkt. No. 27 at 1; Dkt. No. 29 at 2).
forfeited
goodtime
credits,
8
For
visitation,
and
In the
commissary
1
(Complaint at 3).
Therefore, the Complaint is confusing because it is
2
not clear whether Plaintiff’s sanctions were reversed or what the
3
precise injuries that Plaintiff suffered were.
4
5
Furthermore, although Plaintiff appears generally to assert a First
6
Amendment claim, Plaintiff is advised that prison regulations that
7
infringe on a prisoner’s First Amendment rights are valid so long as
8
they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner
9
v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987).
To
10
succeed on a First Amendment claim, a plaintiff must show five elements:
11
1) an assertion that the government actor took some adverse action
12
against the inmate 2) because of 3) that prisoner’s protected conduct,
13
and that such action 4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First
14
Amendment rights, and 5) the action did not reasonably advance a
15
legitimate correctional goal.
16
(9th Cir. 2005).
17
allege facts address these elements of his claim.
18
Complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend.
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68
In any future amended complaint, Plaintiff should
Accordingly, the
19
20
V.
21
CONCLUSION
22
23
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with leave
24
to amend.
If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is
25
granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order
26
within which to file a First Amended Complaint.
27
complaint, the Plaintiff shall cure the defects described above.
28
First Amended Complaint, if any, shall be complete in itself and shall
9
In any amended
The
1
bear both the designation “First Amended Complaint” and the case number
2
assigned to this action.
3
previously filed complaint in this matter.
It shall not refer in any manner to any
4
5
In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should confine his allegations
6
to those operative facts supporting each of his claims.
7
advised that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all that
8
is required is a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that
9
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to
10
utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended
11
complaint, a copy of which is attached.
12
Plaintiff should identify the nature of each separate legal claim and
13
make clear
14
separate
15
statements concise and to omit irrelevant details.
16
for Plaintiff to cite case law or include legal argument.
17
also advised to omit any claims for which he lacks a sufficient factual
18
basis.
19
Defendants or claims not reasonably related to the allegations in the
20
Complaint.
what
claims.
specific
factual
Plaintiff
is
In any amended complaint,
allegations
strongly
Plaintiff is
support
encouraged
each
to
of his
keep
his
It is not necessary
Plaintiff is
Furthermore, the First Amended Complaint may not include new
21
22
Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a
23
First
Amended
Complaint,
or
failure
24
described above, will result in a recommendation that this action be
25
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders
26
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff is further
27
advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may
28
voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance
10
to
correct
the
deficiencies
1
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).
2
A form Notice of
Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s convenience.
3
4
DATED: April 29, 2013
5
6
/S/
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?