Dews v. County of Kern et al

Filing 43

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Plaintiff's Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/28/2014, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
On February 21, 2012, Clarence Leon
CLARENCE LEON DEWS,

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0245-AWI-MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 18)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Dews (“Plaintiff”), an individual proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl.,
ECF No. 1.)
The Court screened Plaintiff’s initial Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a

22
23

claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff has since filed a First Amended

24

Complaint (Am. Compl., ECF No. 18) which is now before the Court for screening. No other

25

parties have appeared in this action.

26

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

27

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

28

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
1

1

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that
are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

2
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
3
4
5
6

1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

7
8

28 U.S.C. §

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

9

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

10

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing

11

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

12

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556

13

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the

14

mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are

15

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

16

II.

17

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. The events alleged in his First

18

Amended Complaint appear to have occurred at Wasco State Prison.

19

difficult to decipher. It suggests that Plaintiff wants to allege that the following individuals

20

violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights: 1) Unit-Supervisor, 2) blond,

21

white correctional officer, 3) warden at Wasco State Prison, 4) County of Kern, City of

22

Bakersfield, and 5) City of Wasco.

The pleading is

23

Plaintiff’s allegations are summarized, as well as the Court can, as follows:

24

While Plaintiff was incarcerated at Wasco State Prison, a fight occurred between two

25

inmates and several rounds of ammunition were fired. Even though Plaintiff was not involved

26

in the fight, he was shot and injured. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by shooting

27

and injuring him.

28

Plaintiff asks for $425,000 in damages.
2

1

III.

ANALYSIS
A.

2
3
4
5
6

42 U.S.C. § 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. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). § 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, 393-94 (1989).

7
8
9
10
11
12

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.
1987).
B.

Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection

13

The Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly

14

situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432,

15

439 (1985). “Prisoners are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

16

Amendment from invidious discrimination based on race.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

17

556 (1974). An equal protection claim may be established in two ways. The first method

18

requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant has intentionally discriminated against the

19

plaintiff on the basis of the plaintiff's membership in a protected class. See, e.g., Lee v. City

20

of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). Under this theory of equal protection, the

21

plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions were a result of the plaintiff's membership in

22

a suspect class, such as race, religion, or alienage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d

23

1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005).

24

Plaintiff previously was advised of the deficiencies in his Complaint and what would be
He has not done so.

He has failed to follow the Court’s

25

necessary to correct them.

26

directions.

27

Defendants’ actions were a result of Plaintiff’s membership in a suspect class. Plaintiff has

28

failed to state an equal protection claim.

He still does not allege that he was part of a protected class or that any

3

If the action does not involve a suspect classification, a plaintiff may establish an

1

equal protection claim by showing that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated
2
differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Village of Willowbrook
3
v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1
4
5
6
7
8

(1972); SeaRiver Mar. Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir. 2002). To
state an equal protection claim under this theory, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff is
a member of an identifiable class; (2) the plaintiff was intentionally treated differently from
others similarly situated; and (3) there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.
Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. at 564.

9

Plaintiff has not alleged facts to satisfy any of these three factors.

10
11
12

No useful purpose would be served by yet again advising Plaintiff of what is necessary
to plead a cognizable claim or by giving him further leave to amend.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

13
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be

14
15
16
17
18

granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously notified of the deficiencies in his claims
and given leave to amend. Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds
that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.
2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

for failure to state any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
4

1

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

2

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

3

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

4

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

5

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

6

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

7

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
12

Dated:

April 28, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5