Woodis v. Olive et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/26/2013 recommending dismissal with prejudice 13 Second Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections due by 10/31/2013. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DENO EUGENE WOODIS,

11

CASE NO.

Plaintiff,

12

1:12-cv-01091-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER RECOMMENDING
WITH PREJUDICE

DISMISSAL

v.
(ECF No. 13)

13
PAM OLIVE, et al.,
14

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE
IN THIRTY (30) DAYS

Defendants.

15

/

16
17

SCREENING ORDER

18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20

On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff Deno Eugene Woodis, a civil detainee proceeding pro

21

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF

22

No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) were screened and

23

dismissed, with leave to amend, on November 30, 2012 and February 1, 2013,

24
25
26

respectively, for failure to state cognizable claims. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) is now before the Court for screening.

27
1

1

II.

2
3

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the

Complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

4
5

thereof if it determines that the action has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or

6

malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that seek monetary

7

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

8

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court

9

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . .

10

. fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

11
Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges,

12
13

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia

14

Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not

15

itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal

16

rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

17

III.

SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

18
The Second Amended Complaint names Andre King and other unspecified

19
20

personnel at Coalinga State Hospital as Defendants. Plaintiff’s allegations are brief,

21

fragmented, and at times illegible. From what the Court can determine, Plaintiff alleges that

22

he is being confined illegally. He seeks money damages and release from custody.

23

(Compl. at 3.)

24

IV.

ANALYSIS

25
26

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

27
2

1
2
3

(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,

4
5
6

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

7

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

8

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

9

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

10

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set

11
12
13

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its
face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant

14

committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

15

conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

16
17

Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint or
amended complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

18
pleader is entitled to relief.” Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,
19
20
21

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly.
Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).

22

The amended complaint vaguely alleges that Plaintiff is being held at Coalinga

23

illegally. No factual summary of the events underlying Plaintiff’s claim is provided in the

24

complaint. As pled, it does not reflect a cognizable claim.

25
The Court has twice previously notified Plaintiff that to state a claim he must first
26
27

provide a basic description of what happened to him that gives rise to his complaint. He
3

1

was specifically instructed that merely alleging confinement against his will was not

2

sufficient to state a claim.1

3

Plaintiff, having been made aware of the minimum pleading requirements necessary

4
5
6

to state a claim, has failed to successfully amend. No purpose would be served in once
again advising Plaintiff of the necessary elements to a proper pleading and giving him yet

7

another chance to amend. Further leave to amend should be denied.

8

V.

9
10

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not state a cognizable claim against the

named Defendants. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

11
12

dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

13
14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18
19
20

////
///

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

If Plaintiff wishes to challenge “the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the
relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
500 (1973). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. §
2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship
to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 487.
Heck applies to civil detainees with access to habeas relief. Huftile v. Miccio–Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136,
1139–40 (9th Cir. 2005).

4

1
2

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

ci4d6

September 26, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5