Hughes v. Bruner

Filing 29

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/23/2013 recommending that Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 1/27/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BERNARD C. HUGHES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ROBERT BRUNER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

the complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim.
After Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint, Findings and Recommendations were
issued on December 17, 2012.
On January 9, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and vacated

23
24

[ECF No. 23]

Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 21, 2011. On April 22, 2011, the Court dismissed

21
22

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR
RELIEF

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19
20

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00110-AWI-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Bernard C. Hughes is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

the Findings and Recommendations previously issued.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on December 26,

25
26

2012.

27

///

28

///
1

1

I.

2

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

3

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

4

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

5

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

6

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks

7

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

8
9

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

10

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

11

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

12

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally

13

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County,

14

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).

15

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings

16

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now

17

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive

18

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow

19

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal,

20

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer

21

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely

22

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556

23

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

24

III.

25

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

26

Plaintiff contends that on December 28, 2009, he submitted a written note to Defendant

27

Sergeant Robert Bruner regarding a dispute over a potential rules violation. Defendant Bruner went to

28

Plaintiff’s cell to discuss the grievance and prison rules. In the course of the discussion, Plaintiff said
2

1

a few swear words to Defendant, but did not make any threats. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff

2

was issued a rules violation for threatening Defendant Bruner. After being found guilty of the rules

3

violation, Plaintiff was deprived of outdoor exercise, telephone use, and visitation.
Plaintiff filed a citizen complaint with Mariposa County Sheriff’s Office on January 11, 2010.

4
5

His complaint was sustained after an investigation determined that Defendant Bruner violated the

6

facilities policies and ethics. However, Bruner was not disciplined because he was no longer

7

employed with the Mariposa County Sheriff’s Office.

8

II.

9

DISCUSSION
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right

10
11

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation was

12

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

13

(1988).

14

False charges alone are not actionable under § 1983 because falsely accusing an inmate of

15

misconduct does not violate a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For a

16

false accusation to be potentially actionable, the false charge must implicate some constitutional

17

rights, such as the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to due process or the First Amendment-based right

18

to be free from retaliation. An allegation of a false charge that results in discipline that is no severe

19

enough to amount to a deprivation of a protected liberty interest under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472

20

(1995)-that is, by imposing an atypical and significant hardship or by inevitably affecting the duration

21

of confinement-does not state a claim under § 1983. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 653-654

22

(3d Cir. 2002) (no § 1983 claim was stated for allegedly false charges because the disciplinary

23

confinement imposed was too short to amount to an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin).

24

Even if the false charges does result in discipline that amounts to the deprivation of a protected liberty

25

interest under Sandin, a § 1983 claim is not stated if the inmate is afforded the procedural protections

26

required by federal law at the disciplinary hearing. See Smith, 392 F.3d at 654.

27
28

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges nothing more than the mere fact that Defendant Bruner
issued a false rules violation report, which is insufficient to give rise to a cognizable constitutional
3

1

violation. Plaintiff was previously provided notification of the deficiencies and given leave to amend

2

to cure the defects. Based on the deficiencies at issue in his amended complaint, further leave to

3

amend is not warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-1213 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith,

4

203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

5

III.

6

RECOMMENDATION

7

Based on the foregoing,

8

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a

9
10

cognizable claim for relief.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court

11

Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of

12

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days

13

after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on

14

all parties. Such a document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and

15

Recommendation.@ The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge=s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

16

636 (b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

17

the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 23, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4