Wondiyrad Kabede v. CDC Secretary, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 03/27/17 ordering CASE TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. (Plummer, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 3/28/2017.]

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WONDIYRAD KABEDE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:15-cv-1203 DB P ORDER DIRECTOR’S LEVEL CHIEF OF INMATE APPEALS, et al.,, Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 3.) His first 19 amended complaint is before the court for screening. 20 I. 21 Screening Requirement The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 22 thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 23 determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 25 II. 26 27 Pleading Standard Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. 28 1 1 Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of 2 substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred 3 elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). 4 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 5 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged 6 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 7 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987). 8 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 10 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 12 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 13 matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial 14 plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, 15 while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78. 16 III. 17 Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff brings this suit against a number of defendants for conduct that occurred while he 18 was housed at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California1: Correctional Counselor B. Friend, 19 Sergeant W. Griffith, Appeals Coordinators K. Chambers and W. McCullough, Chief of the 20 Director’s Level Appeals R.L. Briggs, and California Department of Corrections and 21 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Secretary Jeffrey Beard. 22 Plaintiff’s allegations may be fairly summarized as follows: 23 Plaintiff alleges that during his first eight years of incarceration, he received no CDCR 24 115 Disciplinary Rule Violation Reports (“RVR”). After those eight years, he was transferred to 25 San Quentin State Prison in San Quentin, California, where he received his first RVR. He was 26 then transferred to New Folsom State Prison in Folsom, California, where he received 11 RVRs, 27 28 1 Plaintiff is presently housed at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. 2 1 and then transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California, where he received 2 another 11 RVRs. Each of these RVRs was written within a 30-day period upon arrival at the new 3 institution. Plaintiff claims these RVRs were issued “to jack-up my classification score point to keep 4 5 me at maximum security to get me killed.” He also claims he was housed with a mentally ill 6 inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison “to get me raped and killed several times….” The amended 7 complaint suggests that some of the RVRs that he received are related to his refusal to accept cell 8 mates “to protect [his] life.” Finally, plaintiff accuses “someone from parole board” of ordering 9 “underground to give me CDC 115 Rule Violation to deny me hearing and parole.” Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not address the defendants’ involvement in the 10 11 violation of his rights. Rather, this pleading references attachments to his original complaint, 12 which provide context for the involvement of the named defendants. These attachments include 13 an allegedly false RVR filed by defendant B. Friend at Ironwood State Prison accusing plaintiff 14 of entering her office without permission. The attachments also include (a) a grievance filed by 15 plaintiff concerning the RVR, (b) the responses to that grievance by Ironwood State Prison 16 employees and defendants in this case, Chambers and McCullough, and (c) the notes of the 17 Ironwood State Prison hearing on the RVR where defendant Griffith served as the hearing officer. 18 Plaintiff states he is not seeking money damages, but it is unclear what relief he does seek. 19 IV. Discussion 20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 In this case, the specific claim underlying plaintiff’s complaint arose at Ironwood State 28 Prison in Blythe, California. This institution is located in Riverside County, which is in the 3 1 Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United 2 States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court 3 may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 4 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 5 V. 6 Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 7 States District Court for the Central District of California. 8 Dated: March 27, 2017 9 10 11 /DLB7; Inbox/Substantive/kabe1203.transfer 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?