Garcia v. Scretary of California, et al.

Filing 27

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 24 Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint be DISMISSED; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; and ORDER GRANTING 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Copies signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/17/2015. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
RAYMOND THOMAS GARCIA, JR.,

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00057-LJO-MJS (PC)

12
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO:
1) DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

JEFFERY BEARD, et al.,
(ECF NO. 24)
Defendants.

16
17

2) DENY AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

18

(ECF NO. 25)

19

3) GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
COPIES

20
21

(ECF NO. 26)

22

FOURTEEN
DEADLINE

(14)

DAY

OBJECTION

23
24
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25
Plaintiff Raymond Thomas Garcia, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
26
27
28

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 4 &
10.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his complaint.

10

Then on

February 27, 2014, he filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10.) without the
Court having screened his original Complaint and without any First Amended Complaint
having been filed. On March 18, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but granted Plaintiff leave to
amend. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on March 30, 2015,
and it is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 24.)

8
9

(ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff also filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 25.) and a motion for
copies. (ECF No. 26.) The Court will address these motions below.
II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee,

17

or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any

18

time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on

19

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

20

III.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

21

Plaintiff identifies Secretary of California Department of Corrections and

22

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Jeffrey Beard, Sacramento CDCR Records employee John or

23

Jane Doe I, Counselor Jane Doe, and other governmental entities or employees as

24

defendants.

25

It is difficult to decipher Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and the allegations in

26

it, but it appears to allege that Plaintiff has been falsely imprisoned and negligently

27

incarcerated beyond the term of his sentence.

28
2

1
2

IV.

ANALYSIS
A.

Section 1983

3

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

4

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.”

5

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

6

Section 1983 “‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method

7

for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,

8

393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3 (1979)).

9

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

10

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States was

11

violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

12

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); see also Ketchum v.

13

Cnty. of Alameda, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

14

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

15

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

16

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

17

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

18

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff

19

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

20

plausible on its face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility

21

that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as

22

true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

23

B.

Complaint Format

24

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

25

[Plaintiff] is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be

26

simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (emphasis added).

27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint does not contain complete sentences or
thoughts, the words run together, and it is single-spaced. The Court will address the
claims that Plaintiff appears to be alleging.
C.

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).
Plaintiff names other governmental entities or employees of CDCR as
Defendants, but fails to separate these Defendants individually or link any of them to a

12

violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff did not name any of these Defendants in his

13

original Complaint and fails to plead any facts related to them in his Third Amended

14

Complaint. Plaintiff also does not appear to link any of the named Defendants to a

15

specific violation of his constitutional rights.

16

D.

17

Plaintiff appears to allege state law claims of negligence, false imprisonment, and

18

State Tort Violations

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

19

The Court’s prior screening order granted Plaintiff leave to amend his state law

20

claims to demonstrate necessary compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. (ECF

21

No. 23.) Plaintiff’s failure to do so is reasonably construed as an inability to do so.

22

E.

23

Often referred to as the Heck bar, the favorable termination rule bars any civil

24

rights claim which, if successful, would demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its

25

duration. Such claims may be asserted only in a habeas corpus petition. Heck v.

26

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994) (until and unless favorable termination of the

27

conviction or sentence occurs, no cause of action under § 1983 exists); see also

Heck Bar

28
4

1
2
3

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997) (holding that a claim for monetary and
declaratory relief challenging the validity of procedures used to deprive a prisoner of
good-time credits is not cognizable under § 1983).

4
5
6

Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s prior screening order that if he wishes to
dispute the propriety of his incarceration, calculation of good time credits, or his eligible
parole date, he must pursue said claims in a habeas corpus petition.

Instead of

7

complying with the Court’s prior order, Plaintiff appears to dispute that his claims are

8

barred by Heck. Plaintiff has neither filed a motion for reconsideration nor pled any new

9

facts or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s prior order.

10

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.

11

2009) (“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

12

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

13

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”)

14

Therefore, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be dismissed

15

with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

16

V.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

17

Plaintiff filed notice of his lack of access to the law library and to a typewriter and

18

sought leave to file his Third Amended Complaint in pencil and/or have the Clerk’s Office

19

photocopy it. In light of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint being timely received and

20

filed, his motion is DENIED as moot.

21

VI.

MOTION FOR COPIES

22

Plaintiff provides a summary of his Third Amended Complaint and also appears to

23

be seeking a copy of his Third Amended Complaint. The Clerk’s Office is directed to

24

send Plaintiff a copy of his Third Amended Complaint with service of this order to allow

25

Plaintiff to file any objections to the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations.

26
27
28
5

1

VII.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim.

He

previously was advised of pleading deficiencies and afforded the opportunity to correct
them. He failed to do so. Any further leave to amend reasonably appears futile and
should be DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of his Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk
should send Plaintiff a copy of his Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24.) with this
order.
The undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed with prejudice, that
dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that the Clerk of the
Court terminate any and all pending motions and close the case.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and
recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

April 17, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
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
28
7