Payne v. King

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING 1 Complaint for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; Amended Complaint in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/19/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
JAMES PAYNE,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1799-MJS

12
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

AUDREY KING, et al.,
Defendants.

16

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZALBE
CLAIM
(ECF NO. 1)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

17
Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) proceeding pro se

18
19

and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1

20

& 9.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8.)
On October 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (ECF No. 1.) It is now before

21
22

the Court for screening.

23

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

24

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

25

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

27

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail “to state a claim upon

28

which relief may be granted,” or that “seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

1
2
3
4
5

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 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 on
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
II.

6
7
8
9
10
11

Section 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).
Section 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) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3 (1979)).

12
13
14
15
16

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution and 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); see also Ketchum v.
Cnty. of Alameda, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

PLEADING STANDARD

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 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff
must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility
that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as
true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
III.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is detained at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California,

28
2

1
2

where the events giving rise to this action occurred.

Executive Director of Coalinga, in her individual and official capacity as defendant.

3

Plaintiff alleges essentially the following:

4
5
6
7

Pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), Plaintiff has been in the
custody of Defendant King at CSH since June 2013. Defendant King, through her
policies and customs, has subjected Plaintiff to excessively restrictive confinement in
relation to the purposes of the SVPA.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to not be subject to
punitive conditions by: 1) housing him with California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) prisoners, illegal aliens, and Mentally Disordered Offenders; and
2) subjecting him to restrictions that have no relationship to providing treatment or
protecting the public and are more restrictive than other secure civil housing facilities,
such as in Texas. Plaintiff is subject to unlawful limitations on possessions, clothing,
living conditions, privacy, dining options, and access to library materials, and to invasive
searches and emergency drills.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff names Audrey King,

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages.
IV.

ANALYSIS
A.

Official Capacity

Plaintiff sues Defendant King in her individual and official capacity. Plaintiff may
not bring suit for monetary damages against Defendant King in her official capacity.
AThe Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a
state, its agencies, and state officials in their official capacities.@ Aholelei v. Dep’t of Pub.
Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
However, Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief barring Defendant King from housing
SVPA detainees under punitive conditions. An official capacity claim for injunctive relief
against a state official requires that a policy or practice of the governmental entity be the
moving force behind the violation. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Plaintiff does

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

not allege facts to support his conclusion that Defendant King’s policies or customs
caused the violation of his rights. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must specifically
identify the policy or custom and its contents, and to the best of his ability state when it
was adopted, by whom, and how it led to the violation of his constitutional rights.
B.

Supervisory Liability & Linkage

Under Section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each Defendant personally
participated in the deprivation of his rights. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934
(9th Cir. 2002). In other words, there must be an actual connection or link between the
actions of the Defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff.
See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 695 (1978).
Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates

12

under a theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

13

691, 691 (1978). Since a government official cannot be held liable under a theory of

14

vicarious liability in § 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts showing that the

15

official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions by linking each

16

named Defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

17

Plaintiff's federal rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.

18

Liability may be imposed on supervisory defendants under § 1983 only if the

19

supervisor: (1) personally participated in the deprivation of constitutional rights or

20

directed the violations or (2) knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.

21

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

22

(9th Cir. 1989). Defendants cannot be held liable for being generally deficient in their

23

supervisory duties.

24

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant King knew of the excessively restrictive conditions

25

because civil detainees have routinely notified her of them through written complaints

26

and federal lawsuits.

27

unconstitutional restrictions to any particular complaint or lawsuit.

However, Plaintiff does not tie the litany of allegedly

28
4

Plaintiff has not

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

alleged facts demonstrating that Defendant King knew of each of the alleged violations,
what specific document, claim, or suit gave her notification, and how she failed to act to
prevent the violations from continuing to occur. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.
C.

Conditions of Confinement

Plaintiff, a civil detainee pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code '
6600 et seq., is not a prisoner within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

He retains greater liberty

protections than individuals detained under criminal process and is “’entitled to more
considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of
confinement are designed to punish.’” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir.
2004) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982)).

Treatment is

presumptively punitive when a civil “detainee is confined in conditions identical to, similar
to, or more restrictive” than his criminal counterparts. Id. at 933.
Plaintiff’s right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected
by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315.
A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing his liberty
interests against the relevant state interests”; the Constitution, however, is not
concerned with de minimis restrictions on a patient’s liberties.

Id. at 320-21.

Additionally, there must be a reasonable relationship between “the conditions and
duration of confinement” and the purpose for which the civilly confined person is
committed. Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 265 (2001).
1.

Property

Plaintiff complains of restrictions regarding what property he is able to possess
and have access to, where he is able to store it, and how he is allowed to decorate his
room. The Fourteenth Amendment protects Plaintiff from the deprivation “of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law.”

U.S. CONST.

AMEND.

XIV.

To allege a

constitutional violation of his due process rights, Plaintiff must allege a property interest,

28
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

which is “more than an abstract need or desire for [the item] . . . He must, instead, have
a legitimate claim of entitlement to it" under state or federal law. Bd. of Regents v. Roth,
408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
Plaintiff has not alleged a constitutionally-recognized property or liberty interest in
the continued possession of the numerous contraband items he lists in his complaint or
in the ability to possess items to decorate his room.
To the extent Plaintiff might allege the deprivation of the property was not
authorized by state law, the Supreme Court has precluded a procedural due process
claim based upon an “unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state
employee if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).

“California law provides an adequate post-

deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.” Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–
17 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810–895).
Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim for relief for violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the deprivation of property. If Plaintiff
chooses to amend, he should allege a property interest in the continued possession of
each item he complains of and facts showing an authorized deprivation of the property
without notice and opportunity to contest the deprivation and disposition of the property.
2.

Privacy

The extent of an involuntarily confined civil detainee’s right to privacy in his room
in a secure treatment facility is unclear, but, assuming Plaintiff retains some reasonable
expectation of privacy in his living area at Coalinga, it would necessarily be of a
diminished scope given Plaintiff’s civil confinement.

See Bell, 441 U.S. at 556-57

(discussing detainee’s expectation of privacy in cell or room at detention facility); See
also Pesci, 2012 WL 4856746, at *6 (no expectation of privacy in dormitory); but see,
Hoch, 2013 WL 1004847, at *2 (search of plaintiff’s hospital room, where search was
unreasonable states a Fourth Amendment claim).

28
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff complains of having to share a room with others, being subjected to
emergency drills that disturb him in his room, and a lack of privacy in using the toilets
and showers. Plaintiff fails to allege that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in
his room or the shower area. He also fails to allege how he is harmed by his conditions
or how they have caused him “to endure genuine privation and hardship over an
extended period of time.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 542 (1979).
Plaintiff should note that mere double-bunking of residents at a treatment facility is
not a per se violation of due process. Id., citing Cote v. Maloney, 152 Fed. Appx. 6, 7
(1st Cir. 2005). Some crowding and loss of freedom of movement is one of the inherent
discomforts of confinement. Id.; See also Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th
Cir. 2004) (noting that Bell determined that “the additional discomfort of having to share
the already close corners with another detainee was not sufficiently great to constitute
punishment.”). Even if sharing his room with another individual were to constitute more
than de minimis harm, Plaintiff fails to allege that the condition was intended to punish or
was excessive in relation to a non-punitive purpose. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 934
(9th Cir. 2004).
3.

Clothing

Plaintiff complains of having to wear prison style uniforms that have been worn by
others and not being able to possess more than three days’ worth of clothing. While
“[t]he denial of adequate clothing can inflict pain under the Eighth Amendment,” Plaintiff
fails to allege how he has been harmed by this restriction or how the restriction is meant
to punish. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Hoptowit v. Ray,
682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982)), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v.
Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
4.

Access to Outdoors

SVPA detainees are entitled to adequate opportunities for outdoor (or at least outof-cell) exercise unless there is a legitimate governmental objective. See Pierce v. Cnty.

28
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1211-1212 (9th Cir. 2008); Rainwater v. McGinniss, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113963, at *50-52 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (applying standard to
SVPA detainee’s). Determination of what constitutes adequate exercise is a "contextsensitive" inquiry. See Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1212 (“Determining what constitutes
adequate exercise requires consideration of ‘the physical characteristics of the cell and
jail and the average length of stay of the inmates.’”). Jail officials have "considerable
discretion to curtail access to exercise based on security concerns," but that discretion is
not unlimited. Id. at 1212-1213 (holding that jail officials had not shown that limiting
pretrial detainees to 90 minutes of out-of-cell exercise weekly was reasonably related to
satisfying security concerns).
Plaintiff has not stated a claim based on his lack of access to the outdoors or to a
swimming pool. Plaintiff alleges he is denied “unlimited” access to the Yard and to a
swimming pool. However, the constitution only requires that Plaintiff receive “adequate”
outdoor or out-of-cell time. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should allege what amount
of time he was allowed out of his room and why that amount of time was inadequate.
5.

Meals

Plaintiff complains of his lack of meal choices and allowed time for eating. “The
Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain
health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing.” LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444,
1456 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-13 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff is “‘entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than
criminals.’” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004). However, Plaintiff
fails to allege how his choice of food and allotted time for eating is punitive in nature or is
more restrictive than his criminal counterparts.
6.

Access to Library Materials

Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts, and prison officials may
not actively interfere with his right to litigate. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02

28
8

1
2
3
4
5

(9th Cir. 2011); see also Irvin v. Baca, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21268, at *56 (C.D. Cal.
Jan. 18, 2011) (applying right to SVPA detainee). The right is limited to direct criminal
appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354
(1996).

A plaintiff must show that he suffered an “actual injury,” i.e. prejudice with

respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing

6

deadline or present a non-frivolous claim. Id. at 348-49. An “actual injury” is one that

7

hinders the plaintiff’s ability to pursue a legal claim. Id. at 351.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to use of the library; he has a right to
access to the courts. If Plaintiff wishes to state a claim for his lack of access to the
courts, he must allege what injury he has suffered by his inability to have 24-hour access
to the library and computers and how it hindered his ability to pursue a legal claim.
7.

Search of Room

“The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches.” Bell, 441 U.S. at
558 (citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 147 (1925)); Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty.

15

Sheriff’s Dep’t., 629 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2011). The reasonableness of a search is

16

determined by the context, which “requires a balancing of the need for the particular

17

search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.” Bell, 441 U.S. at

18

559. For the Fourth Amendment to apply there must be a “reasonable expectation of

19

privacy in the place that is invaded.” Espinosa v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 598

20

F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir. 2010); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 (1984). Factors that

21

must be evaluated are “the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is

22

conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.” Bell,

23
24
25
26
27

441 U.S. at 559; Byrd, 629 F.3d at 1141.
Some courts have concluded civil detainees do not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in their rooms. Pesci v. Budz, 2012 WL 4856746, at *6 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 12, 2012) (civil detainee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his
dormitory); but see, Hoch v. Tarkenton, 2013 WL 1004847, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13,

28
9

1
2
3

2013) (finding cognizable Fourth Amendment claim arising from contraband search of
civil detainee’s hospital room where search unsupported by consent, warrant, probable
cause, or reasonable suspicion).

4
5
6
7
8

Here, Plaintiff complains that he was subject to a policy that allowed for a search
of detainees’ rooms on an hourly and weekly basis. However, Plaintiff fails to allege that
he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his room. It is also unclear from Plaintiff’s
complaint when, how, and why these searches were conducted and what justification
Defendant King provided for them.

9

D.

10

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against Defendant King. Injunctive relief, whether

11

temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right.”

12

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).

13
14

“A plaintiff seeking a

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

15

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking

16

Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter,

17

555 U.S. at 20).

18

Plaintiff has failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits or that the

19

balance of equities tips in his favor since at this stage of the proceedings he has failed to

20

state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for injunctive relief but will

21

be given leave to amend.

22

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

23

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim for relief. The Court will grant Plaintiff

24

an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49

25

(9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to

26

amend, it is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

27
28
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his
efforts on curing the deficiencies set forth above.
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general
rule, an “amended complaint supersedes the original” complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently
alleged.

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed
under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations
omitted).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

16
17

Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1.) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted;

2.

18

The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights amended
complaint form and (2) a copy of his signed complaint filed October 31,

19
20

Here, the amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Second

2013;
3.

21

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, in compliance with this order,
the Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice, for failure to comply

22

with a court order and failure to prosecute.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

February 19, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12