Brandon T. Collins v. John Salazar et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/21/2013. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause on or before June 21, 2013, why his in forma pauperis application should not be denied for failure to state a claim for relief. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he shall also have until June 21, 2013, to file an amended Complaint, attempting to cure the defects in the Complaint. Failure to comply with the requirements of this OSC will resu lt in a recommendation that the in forma pauperis application be denied for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, for failure to prosecute, and/or for failure to comply with a court order. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank Central District Civil Rights Complaint form and a blank in forma pauperis application. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Blank Civil Rights Complaint Form, CV 66A) (jh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 13-00893-UA (OP)

Title

Brandon T. Collins v. John Salazar, et al.

Date

May 22, 2013

Oswald Parada, United States Magistrate Judge

Present: The
Honorable
Dana Castellanos
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

I.
Proceedings
On May 10, 2013, in the Eastern District of California, Brandon T. Collins (“Plaintiff”)
lodged for filing a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an in
forma pauperis application in order to proceed without payment of the full filing fee.
(ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On May 14, 2013, an order was issued transferring the Complaint and
in forma pauperis application to this District. (ECF No. 3-5.)
In accordance with the mandate of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”),
the Court must examine a complaint for the purpose of determining whether the action is
frivolous or malicious fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, regardless of
whether a prisoner prepays filing fees or requests to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), (c); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Review under § 1915(e)
for failure to state a claim is governed by the same standard applied in reviewing a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). A
complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two
reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a
cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1990).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 13-00893-UA (OP)

Title

Brandon T. Collins v. John Salazar, et al.

Date

May 22, 2013

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this matter should
not be dismissed.
II.
Discussion
A.

Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) John F. Salazar, Warden
of Chuckawalla State Prison (“CSP”); (2) Correctional Officer (“CO”) J. Marquez; (3)
CO M. Gomez; (4) CO L. Adams; and (5) Lieutenant J. Herrera. Defendants are sued in
their individual capacities. Plaintiff alleges violations of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution based on the alleged
denial of his ability to call witnesses and present exculpatory evidence during a rules
violation hearing. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. (Compl. at 1, 4-5.)
Plaintiff alleges that on May 21, 2009, while he was housed at CSP, he was in his cell
with inmates Walker and Brown talking and looking at photographs. Defendant Adams
was conducting count at the time. After count was finished, Defendant Adams called
Plaintiff to the officer’s podium, informed Plaintiff that he had exposed his crotch area to
her, and was going to issue Plaintiff a rules violation report. The following day, Plaintiff
was placed in administrative segregation for indecent exposure. On May 26, 2009,
Defendant Gomez served Plaintiff with a serious rules violation report for indecent
exposure. Defendant Gomez asked Plaintiff if he wanted her to be his investigative
employee. Plaintiff responded that he did. Plaintiff then indicated that he wanted
inmates Walker and Brown as witnesses. (Id. at 6, 7.)
On August 6, 2009, Defendant Marquez stated that he had been assigned to be Plaintiff’s
new investigative employee. Defendant Marquez indicated that he would be obtaining
statements from inmates Walker and Brown. (Id. at 7.)
On August 10, 2009, Plaintiff appeared before Defendant Herrera for a disciplinary
hearing. Plaintiff was informed that inmates Walker and Brown had been paroled and
were not available for the hearing. Defendant Herrera denied Plaintiff’s request to have
inmates Walker and Brown present, determining that there was sufficient evidence based
on the statement by Defendant Adams to support a finding that Plaintiff was guilty of the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 13-00893-UA (OP)

Title

Brandon T. Collins v. John Salazar, et al.

Date

May 22, 2013

indecent exposure charge. Thus, Defendant Herrera determined that inmates Walker and
Brown would provide no relevant testimony or evidence. (Id. at 8-9, Exs. A-E.1 )
B.

The Complaint Is Subject to Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Based on
Respondeat Superior Liability.

Supervisory personnel are not individually liable under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat
superior or vicarious liability in the absence of a state law imposing such liability.
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 694-95, 98 S. Ct.
2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446
(9th Cir. 1992); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645-46 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisory
official may be personally liable under § 1983 only if he or she was personally involved
in the constitutional deprivation, or if there was a sufficient causal connection between
the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Redman, 942
F.2d at 1446-47; Hansen, 885 F.2d at 646; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
1989). Vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a valid claim. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929
(2007).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff names as one of the Defendants CSP Warden Salazar.
(Compl. at 4, 5) However, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts to establish that
Defendant Salazar was personally involved in a constitutional deprivation or that there
was a sufficient causal connection between the alleged wrongful conduct and the
constitutional violation. See Redman, 942 F.2d at 1446-47. Thus, the Complaint fails to
state a claim based on supervisory liability against Defendant Salazar.
1

Although the scope of review generally is limited to the contents of the
complaint, the Court may also consider exhibits submitted with the complaint, Hal
Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir.
1990), and “take judicial notice of matters of public record outside the pleadings,” Mir v.
Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988). Exhibits that contradict the
allegations of a complaint may fatally undermine those allegations. Sprewell v. Golden
State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 275 F.3d 1187 (2001) (a
plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his
claims.”).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 13-00893-UA (OP)

Title

Brandon T. Collins v. John Salazar, et al.

C.

Date

May 22, 2013

The Complaint Is Subject to Dismissal For Failure to State a Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Claim.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state action that
deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const.
amend XIV. A plaintiff alleging a procedural due process violation must first
demonstrate that he was deprived of a liberty or property interest protected by the Due
Process Clause and then show that the procedures attendant upon the deprivation were
not constitutionally sufficient. Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 459-60,
109 S. Ct. 1904, 104 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1989); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672, 97 S.
Ct. 1401, 51 L. Ed. 2d 711 (1977); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir.
2002); Brewster v. Bd. of Educ., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998).
The procedural due process protections applicable to a prison disciplinary proceeding as
a matter of clearly established Supreme Court law were set forth by the Supreme Court
in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). There,
the Supreme Court held that “prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal
prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not
apply.” McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 556 (citation omitted). The Supreme Court further held,
however, that before a prisoner may be deprived of his liberty interest in good time
credits,2 due process requires five minimal protections: (1) written notice of the charges
in order to inform the inmate of the charges and to enable him to marshal the facts and
prepare a defense, id. at 564; (2) at least a brief period of time after the notice, no less
than 24 hours, to allow the inmate to prepare for the appearance before the hearing, id.;
(3) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the
disciplinary action, id.; (4) the ability to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to
institutional safety or correctional goals, id. at 566; and (5) where an illiterate inmate is
involved, or where the complexity of the issues makes it unlikely that the inmate will be
able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the
2

Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, “Good time credit” is defined as:
“Credit for a DSL [Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976] prisoner’s good
behavior and participation in prison program received pursuant to [California] Penal
Code section 2910, et seq. Good time credit advances the DSL release date.” Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, §§ 2000 (b)(37), (51)
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 13-00893-UA (OP)

Title

Brandon T. Collins v. John Salazar, et al.

Date

May 22, 2013

case, the inmate should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or to have adequate
substitute aid from the staff or from a competent inmate designated by the staff, id. at
570. Once these protections have been provided, due process is satisfied if there is
“some evidence” in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the officials.
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985)).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff also names as Defendants CO Marquez, CO Gomez, CO
Adams, and Lt. Herrera. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s claims are based on the alleged
denial of his ability to call witnesses and present exculpatory evidence during a rules
violation hearing. However, the allegations and exhibits establish that only Defendant
Herrera was responsible for denying Plaintiff’s request to present the testimony or
statements of inmates Walker and Brown. (Compl. at 6-9, Exs. A-E.) As a result, the
Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants Marquez, Gomez, and Adams.
Further, as to Defendant Herrera, no due process claim is established when prison
officials reasonably conclude that calling witnesses would not have been helpful to the
determination and refuse the request. See Davies v. Valdes, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1093
(C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566 (holding that prison officials can refuse
witnesses where they would be irrelevant or unnecessary). That is precisely the case
here. Defendant Herrera denied Plaintiff’s request to have inmates Walker and Brown
present, determining that there was sufficient evidence based on the statement by
Defendant Adams to support a finding that Plaintiff was guilty of the indecent exposure
charge. As a result, Defendant Herrera determined that inmates Walker and Brown
would provide no relevant testimony or evidence. (Compl. at 8-9, Exs. A-E.) Thus, the
Compliant fails to state a claim against Defendant Herrera.
III.
Conclusion
Based the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause on or before June 21, 2013, why
his in forma pauperis application should not be denied for failure to state a claim for
relief. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he shall also have until June 21,
2013, to file an amended Complaint, attempting to cure the defects in the Complaint.
The amended Complaint shall be complete in itself and must remedy the deficiencies
discussed herein.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 13-00893-UA (OP)

Title

Brandon T. Collins v. John Salazar, et al.

Date

May 22, 2013

Failure to comply with the requirements of this OSC will result in a recommendation
that the in forma pauperis application be denied for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, for failure to prosecute, and/or for failure to comply with a court
order.
The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank Central District Civil Rights
Complaint form and a blank in forma pauperis application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc: All Parties of Record
Initials of deputy clerk

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

jh-relief

Page 6 of 6