Rodriguez v. Garcia et al

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing Plaintiff's 11 Action for Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 09/25/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 10/31/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:10-cv-01877-AWI-MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

v.
V. GARCIA, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 11)

Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS

16
17
18

Plaintiff Noel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 8, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) No other parties

20
21

have appeared.
The Court screened Plaintiff’s initial Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state

22

23 a claim, but gave leave to amend.

(ECF No. 10.)

Plaintiff filed a First Amended

24 Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for
25 screening.
26

///

27
///
28

1

1 I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

2

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

3

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

28

4
U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the

5
6

prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a

7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant
8 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any
9 filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the
10 case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a
11
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
12
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
13
the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
14
15 are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
16 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
17 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
18
19

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is
plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

20
21

Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed

22 misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are
23 not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
24 II.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

25

Plaintiff alleges that while housed at California Substance Abuse Treatment

26

Facility and State Prison (“SATF-CSP”) in Corcoran, California, his due process rights

27
under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. He names Garcia, a C.S.R. officer at
28

2

1 SATF-CSP, as the sole defendant in this action.
2

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

3

In June 2009, Plaintiff was placed in solitary confinement after another inmate

4
tried to harm him. On August 5, 2009, after the prison investigated the incident, a
5
6

prison committee cleared Plaintiff for placement in the Special Needs Yard. Instead of

7 placing him in the Special Needs Yard, Defendant Garcia continued to house Plaintiff in
1
8 Administrative Segregation pending a parole board hearing. Plaintiff was transferred to

9 Kern Valley State Prison approximately eight months later.
10
11

Plaintiff asks for $200,000 in punitive damages and $350 to cover his court filing
fees.

12
13

III.

ANALYSIS
A.

14

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims

42 U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights,

15

16 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.”
17 Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). §
18
19

1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for
vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-

20
21

94 (1989).
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)

22

23 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
24 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state
25
26
1

Plaintiff’s allegations notwithstanding, exhibits to the Complaint indicate the prison committee decided to

27 retain Plaintiff in Administrative Segregation until he could be placed in another institution capable of
accommodating his needs. The committee recommended transferring Plaintiff to Kern Valley State

28 Prison’s Special Needs Yard.

3

1 law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d
2 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
3

B.

Due Process Claim

4
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Garcia violated his due process rights by allowing
5
6

Plaintiff to remain in Administrative Segregation after the classification committee

7 suggested that the prison transfer Plaintiff to another institution that could accommodate
8 his needs.
9

The Due Process Clause protects Plaintiff against the deprivation of liberty

10 without the procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law. Wilkinson v.
11
Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). To state a claim, Plaintiff must first identify the
12
interest at stake. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221. Liberty interests may arise from the Due
13
Process Clause or from state law. Id. The Due Process Clause itself does not confer
14
15 on inmates a liberty interest in avoiding more adverse conditions of confinement, id. at
16 221–22 (citations and quotation marks omitted), and under state law, the existence of a
17 liberty interest created by prison regulations is determined by focusing on the nature of
18
19

the condition of confinement at issue, id. at 222–23 (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 481–84 (1995)) (quotation marks omitted).

Liberty interests created by prison

20
21

regulations are generally limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical and

22 significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
23 Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 222–23 (citing Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484) (quotation marks
24 omitted); Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007).
25
26

However, Plaintiff's allegations do not support the existence of a liberty interest in
remaining free from Administrative Segregation, Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 222–23; Myron,

27
476 F.3d at 718; Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976); see also Resnick v.
28

4

1 Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 448–49 (9th Cir. 2000) (no liberty interest in remaining free from
2 the SHU pending disciplinary hearing and no liberty interest in avoiding SHU
3

confinement); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (no liberty interest in

4
remaining free from disciplinary segregation unit pending disciplinary hearing), and in
5
6

the absence of a protected liberty interest, Plaintiff's claim that he was retained in

7 Administrative Segregation without due process fails, Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221.
Even if there were a liberty interest in avoiding administrative segregation,

8

9 determinations on such assignment entitle prisoners only to notice and an opportunity to
10 be heard. From Plaintiff’s allegations and attached exhibits, it appears he received
11
both. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Toussaint v. McCarthy,
12
801 F.2d 1080, 1100 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other grounds, Sandin, 515
13
U.S. 472).
14
15

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for denial of due process.

16 IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

17

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief

18
19

may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously notified of the deficiencies
in his claims and given leave to amend several times. Based on the nature of the

20
21

deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted.

22 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446,
23 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).
24

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s action be

25 dismissed for failure to state any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This dismissal is
26

subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio,

27
658 F.3d 1090, 1098-1099 (9th Cir. 2011).
28

5

1

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States

2 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §
3

636(b)(l).

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and

4
Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document
5
6

should

be

captioned

“Objections

to

Magistrate

Judge’s

Findings

and

7 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
8 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
9 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

September 25, 2013

/s/

16

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

17

Michael J. Seng

il0i0dj70h0c

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6