Williams v. Bigot et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration Of Magistrate's Screening Order (ECF No. 10 ), Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/19/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

9
Plaintiff,
10

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00556-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
MAGISTRATE’S SCREENING ORDER

vs.
(ECF No. 10)

11
12

MARISSA BIGOT, et al.,

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

13
14

Defendants.
________________________________/
Plaintiff Michael B. Williams proceeds pro se and in form pauperis in this civil

15
16

rights action filed April 18, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The

17

Magistrate assigned screened the Complaint and by Order filed May 14, 2013

18

dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but with leave to file an amended complaint.

19

(ECF No. 9.)

20

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration by the

21

assigned District Judge of the Magistrate’s May 14th Order, on grounds the Magistrate

22

did not have jurisdiction to issue the Order and judgment (sic) thereon. (ECF No. 10.)

23

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

24

A.

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides:

26

Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's
claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the
magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and,
when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may
serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served

27
28

Motions for Reconsideration of Non-Dispositive Pretrial Orders

-1-

with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.

1
2
3

“A judge of the court may reconsider [pretrial matters determined by a
4
magistrate judge] where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly
5
erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A).
6
B.

Screening Standards

7
The in forma pauperis statutes provide that “the court shall dismiss the case at
8
any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim
9
upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
10
C.

Pleading Standards

11
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
12
the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
13
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
14
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ––– U.S.
15
––––, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
16
U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.”
17
Doe I v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual
18
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
19
Under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally
20
participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
21
Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a
22
plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949–50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572
23
F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting
24
this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949–50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
25
II.

DISCUSSION

26
A.

Factual Background

27
Plaintiff is civilly committed to Coalinga State Hospital (“Coalinga”) as a sexually
28
-2-

1

violent predator.
He claims Defendant Bigot, a Psychiatric Technician at Coalinga has a practice

2
3

of opening, reading, storing, seizing, or destroying his incoming and outgoing

4

confidential, legal and non-legal mail; retaliating against him for exercising his First

5

Amendment right to file related grievances; and interfering with his right to access the

6

court in an action he has pending with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

7

He also claims Defendant Wagoner, Hospital Patient Rights Advocate at

8

Coalinga, denied him due process in grievance proceedings by concealing and failing

9

to consider exculpatory evidence favorable to Plaintiff, denying due process and

10

violating his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373, U.S. 83 (1963).
He seeks an order enjoining Defendants (1) from censoring and delaying his

11
12

mail, (2) to establish an office of Patients’ Rights Advocate at Coalinga State Hospital,

13

and (3) from retaliating against him. He also seeks a declaration that his Brady rights

14

were clearly established at times relevant; appointment of counsel; and damages and

15

costs.

16

B.

Procedural Background

17

The Magistrate dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, with

18

leave to amend, and denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for counsel. The

19

Magistrate applied the Fourteenth Amendment standard for evaluating the

20

constitutionally protected interests of individuals who have been involuntarily

21

committed to a state facility, Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed.Appx. 148, 150-51 (3d Cir.

22

2007), and analyzed Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims under prisoner rights case law.

23

See Id. at 150.

24

1.

25

Incoming and Outgoing Mail

The Magistrate found that, though prisoners and those involuntarily committed

26

have a limited First Amendment right to send and receive mail, Witherow v. Paff, 52

27

F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995), Plaintiff alleged insufficient facts to suggest Defendant

28

Bigot violated his First Amendment rights. The Magistrate noted grievance proceedings
-3-

1

were not clearly alleged, and that Plaintiff failed to explain the nature and extent of

2

interference with his legal and non-legal mail, and whether the alleged interference

3

was inconsistent with facility practice and prison regulations.
2.

4
5

Access to Courts

The Magistrate found that, though prisoners and those involuntarily committed

6

have a right of access courts, Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2011),

7

and some degree of First Amendment rights in their legal correspondence, Bounds v.

8

Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824–25 (1977), Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to suggest

9

anything more than non-actionable negligence, Mitchell v. Carlson, 404 F.Supp.1220,

10

1225 (D.C. Kan. 1975), and that he suffered an actual injury or loss. Lewis v. Casey,

11

518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996).
3.

12
13

Retaliation

The Magistrate found that, though prisoners and those involuntarily committed

14

are protected from retaliation for exercising rights to speech and to petition the

15

government, Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985), Plaintiff failed to

16

allege facts suggesting adverse action, taken because of protected activity, not

17

advancing a legitimate penological purpose. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-

18

68 (9th Cir. 2005); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).
4.

19
20

Due Process

The Magistrate found that, though civil detainees are entitled to Fourteenth

21

Amendment protections, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 933 (9th Cir. 2004), Plaintiff’s

22

mail disruption claim failed for the reasons stated above. Additionally, the Magistrate

23

found no federal constitutional right to an institutional grievance procedure or injunctive

24

relief thereon, Merryfield v. Jordan, 431 Fed.Appx. 743, at *6 (10th Cir. 2011), such

25

that Plaintiff could not claim a federal violation arising from the grievance process at

26

Coalinga. Id.

27
28

5.

Brady Claim

The Magistrate found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Brady v.
-4-

1

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which proscribes pretrial withholding of evidence

2

“favorable to an accused” and “material to [his] guilt or to punishment” by the

3

prosecution, Brady, 373 U.S. at 1196-97, because Plaintiff’s conviction is not at issue

4

in this action, and a Brady violation leading to a conviction could not be advanced by a

5

§ 1983 action.
6.

6
7

Injunctive Relief

The Magistrate found Plaintiff not entitled to and in need of injunctive relief

8

because the Complaint failed to state any cognizable claim, Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

9

Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting

10

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984),

11

and did not suggest any real and immediate threat of injury. City of Los Angeles v.

12

Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983).
7.

13

Appointment of Counsel

14

The Magistrate denied without prejudice the request included in the Complaint

15

for appointment of counsel, finding the request procedurally deficient because it was

16

not bought by motion, and substantively deficient because facts showing exceptional

17

circumstances were not alleged. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d

18

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1

19

(9th Cir. 1998).

20

C.

21

Plaintiff argues that on April 29, 2013, he declined to extend Magistrate

22

jurisdiction to all matters and proceedings (ECF No. 5), such that the subsequent May

23

14th Order and judgment (sic) thereon exceeded the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and

24

should be vacated and the Complaint reinstated. (ECF 10 at 2-3.) This argument is

25

incorrect.

26

Motion for Reconsideration

The Magistrate’s jurisdiction over non-dispositive pretrial matters is by

27

designation of the assigned district judge; it is not dependent upon the consent of the

28

parties. 28 U.S.C. 636, (b)(1)(A); Local Rule 302(c)(17). The May 14th Order is wholly
-5-

1

non-dispositive pretrial action within the designated Magistrate’s jurisdiction. Id. The

2

May 14th Order dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend consistent with the

3

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The May 14th Order denied the request for

4

counsel without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking such relief consistent with applicable

5

standards. The action was not dismissed. Judgment has not been entered.
Plaintiff’s arguments do not reach the central issue of the Magistrate’s Order -

6
7

the Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 8. Until Plaintiff is able to meet these requirements the Court cannot allow this

9

action to be served on any Defendants or continue with the litigation process.

10

III.

ORDER

11

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is DENIED;

13

2.

Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order

14

to file an amended complaint; the amended complaint must comply with

15

the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure, and the Local Rules; the amended complaint must bear the

17

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “First

18

Amended Complaint”; and

19

3.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

20

Order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a

21

claim and failure to prosecute.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0m8i78

June 19, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
-6-