Hubbard v. Gipson et al
Filing
11
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Action with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim re 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/14. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ZANE HUBBARD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
C. GIPSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00275-LJO-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 9)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
19
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court screened Plaintiff‟s complaint (ECF No. 1), and dismissed it for failure
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff since has filed a first
amended complaint (ECF No. 9) which is before the Court for screening. Plaintiff‟s
complaint also requests consolidation of this action with Case No. 1:14-cv-00042-AWIJLT.
I.
THE COMPLAINT
A.
Screening Requirement
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
1
§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has
2
raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which
3
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
4
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
5
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
6
determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may
7
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
8
B.
Pleading Standard
9
Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights,
10
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
11
Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass‟n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
12
Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for
13
vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94
14
(1989).
15
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)
16
that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2)
17
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.
18
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243,
19
1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
20
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
21
the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
22
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
23
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
24
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
25
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
26
that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere
27
possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are
28
2
1
accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
2
C.
3
Plaintiff initially complained of acts that occurred during his incarceration at
4
Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”). His initial complaint named as Defendants: (1) Gipson,
5
(2) T. Drew, (3) CSP Superintendent, (4) Lt. Peña, (5) Hall, (6) T. King, and (7) Aceves.
6
The complaint alleged that Defendants, motivated by discrimination against Plaintiff,
7
conspired to torture him by using illegal electroconvulsive therapy, and that his Privacy
8
Act right and copyrights were violated by Defendants‟ broadcasting his artwork, song
9
lyrics, social security and “other personal material” at CSP.
10
Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint substantially expands on these allegations and
11
adds numerous new claims and defendants. The first amended complaint names the
12
following 37 Defendants: (1) Connie Gipson, CSP Warden; (2) T. Drew, Institutional
13
Gang Investigator (“IGI”) Lieutenant at Wasco State Prison („WSP”); (3) Rawland K.
14
Swift, CSP Chief Deputy Warden; (4) S. Pena, CSP IGI Lieutenant; (5) Aceves, WSP
15
Correctional Sergeant; (6) T. King, Deputy Gang Sheriff at Kern County Sheriff‟s
16
Detention Center; (7) J. Pierce, CSP IGI; (8) J.C. Garcia, CSP IGI Lieutenant; (9) D.
17
Gonzalez, WSP Correctional Officer; (10) M. Gonzalez, CSP Correctional Officer; (11)
18
J.C. Smith, CSP Chief Deputy Warden; (12) C. Rodriguez, WSP Assistant IGI; (13) L.J.
19
Williams, CSP Correctional Officer; (14) Graves-Banks, CSP Correctional Counselor I;
20
(15) Flores, CSP Correctional Officer; (16) Hirachetta, CSP Correctional Officer; (17)
21
Mendez, CSP Correctional Sergeant; (18) Brian, CSP Correctional Officer; (19) Chavez,
22
CSP Correctional Officer; (20) R. Viramontes, SNY Correctional Informant at CSP; (21)
23
T. Perez, CSP Chief Deputy Warden; (22) De Ochoa, CSP Correctional Sergeant, (23)
24
Kellogs, CSP Correctional Sergeant; (24) Arthuro Estrada, CSP inmate; (25) Carlos
25
Contreras, CSP inmate; (26) Stanley “Tuki” Williams, CSP inmate; (27) Black Mike from
26
Compton, CA, CSP inmate; (28) Tony Christian, CSP inmate; (29) Richard Silvas, CSP
27
Inmate; (30) Barry, CSP inmate; (31) Antonio Hinojosa, CSP Inmate; (32) Uribe, Folsom
28
3
1
State Prison (“FSP”) Inmate; (33) Vargas, FSP Inmate; (34) Fradieu, FSP Inmate; (35)
2
Woods, CSP Nurse; (36) Richard Arambulo Leuvano Thomas, Parolee in Bakersfield;
3
and (37) Michael Moreno, Ex-Felon.
4
5
Plaintiff‟s allegations are difficult to understand but generally appear to complain
of two specific aspects of Defendants‟ conduct.
6
First, Plaintiff alleges that various defendants are using illegal electroconvulsive
7
therapy, psychosurgery, lobotomy, stereotactic surgery, deconstruction of brain tissue,
8
electronic stimulation to the brain, and “galvanization” against him. According to Plaintiff
9
this conduct has two purposes: (1) to brainwash him so he will “debrief” on other
10
inmates, drop out of a gang, incriminate himself, and become law enforcement; and
11
(2) to obtain information regarding Plaintiff‟s identity, “birthrights,” and privacy, and
12
broadcast it to the Sensitive Needs Yard (“SNY”) population, law enforcement, and the
13
nation.
14
Second, Plaintiff alleges that he is “abnormally classified.” Plaintiff appears to take
15
issue with his placement in the CSP Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). Plaintiff states that
16
the SHU at CSP and FSP is only for SNY debriefers and gang dropouts. Plaintiff is a
17
Mexican Mafia associate and therefore incompatible with SNY inmates. He wishes to be
18
placed in a general population SHU. Housing him at CSP is “torture.” He believes he is
19
being held there until he debriefs or informs. He has been placed in the “step down”
20
program against his will, and is being forced to debrief and drop out, or to be kept in
21
solitary confinement. Plaintiff also alleges he was validated as a gang member based on
22
his race.
23
Plaintiff also raises numerous other general allegations: His due process rights
24
have been “eradicated.” His health and safety are in constant danger. He is unlawfully
25
confined and is being excessively punished. Unspecified individuals are impinging on
26
Plaintiff‟s copyrights by exposing the contents of his creative art. Plaintiff‟s conviction is
27
unlawful. His gang validation is unconstitutional. His housing is unconstitutional. The
28
4
1
conditions of his confinement are unconstitutional. He is suffering from “incompatible
2
activity.”
3
Plaintiff‟s specific allegations are as follows.
4
Plaintiff was in solitary confinement at CSP from December 26, 2013 through
5
February 10, 2014. False documents stating Plaintiff had enemy concerns with the
6
Mexican Mafia were presented to the Committee that assigned him to solitary. These
7
documents concerned an altercation Plaintiff had with his cell mate, who was a Mexican
8
Mafia dropout. Plaintiff is a Mexican Mafia associate. He has enemy concerns with the
9
CSP SNY population and FSP SHU population. SNY inmates worked with California
10
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) employees to falsify enemy
11
concerns against him for discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff appealed his assignment to
12
solitary. Defendant Azevedo denied his appeal at the first level. Defendant Smith
13
“eradicated the contents of the appeal” at the second level but “granted the entire
14
appeal.” Nevertheless, Plaintiff was not afforded any relief.
15
On February 9, 2014, Defendants Gipson, Swift, Garcia, Perez, L.J. Williams,
16
Hirachetta, De Ochoa, Rodriguez, and Kellogs used electroconvulsive therapy and
17
threatened to kill Plaintiff if he did not enter protective custody and debrief or inform on
18
others. Plaintiff filed a CDCR Form 22 to Defendants Swift and Gipson regarding this
19
incident. Swift and Gipson did not respond.
20
Defendant Pena also used electroconvulsive therapy and threatened to kill
21
Plaintiff because Plaintiff had seen Defendant Pena engaged in illegal activities while
22
Plaintiff was on parole. Plaintiff filed a CDCR Form 22 to Defendants Swift and Gipson
23
regarding this incident. Swift and Gipson did not respond.
24
Defendants Pena, Garcia, Perez, L.J. Williams, Hirachetta, De Ochoa, Rodriguez,
25
Kellogs, Estrada, Contreras, Stanley “Tuki” Williams, Black Mike, Uribe, Vargas, Fradieu
26
and Walls told Plaintiff they were going to kill him because they are SNY gangsters and
27
28
5
1
Plaintiff is not a dropout or a debriefer. Plaintiff filed a Form 22 to Defendant Gipson or
2
Swift alleging that he was in fear for his life. Gipson and Swift did not respond.
3
On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Form 602 complaint alleging that he feared
4
for his life. He complained that inmates and staff had threatened to kill him at CSP and
5
FSP. The inmates and employees told him they were SNY gangsters and were going to
6
kill him because he would not drop out. They also told him he was housed in CSP out of
7
discrimination on the hope that he would contract Valley Fever. Defendant Azevedo
8
denied his appeal at the first level. Defendant Smith denied his appeal at the second
9
level. Defendant Briggs denied his appeal at the third level, causing Plaintiff to “suffer an
10
additional 60 days.”
11
From June 1, 2013 to April 10, 2014, Defendants Pierce, Pena, and Garcia
12
threatened to kill him, sodomize him, kidnap him, sexually assault him, and put him in
13
SNY. They also falsified documents against him. Defendants C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez,
14
and Gipson “concurred.”
15
16
Defendants Smith, Gipson, Swift, Pena, Garcia, and Pierce housed him with
dropout debriefers “in a Blackhawk down” situation.
17
On April 1, 2014, Defendants Drew, Rodriguez, and L.J. Williams sexually
18
harassed Plaintiff through electroconvulsive therapy, made sexual comments to him, and
19
threatened to kill him, slander him, and expose his identity.
20
21
22
23
24
25
On February 2, 2013, Defendant Graves-Banks illegally confiscated a
resentencing notice and withheld Plaintiff from sentence modification.
On June 9, 2013, Defendant Flores and Hirachetta gave Plaintiff two used
unmarked razors to shave with, which is a health and safety hazard.
On May 1, 2013, Defendants Mendes, Brian and Chavez housed him with Inmate
Viramontes, resulting in the altercation that led to Plaintiff‟s solitary confinement.
26
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that his due process rights were violated; a
27
permanent injunction against his placement at CSP, FSP, or in the step down program;
28
6
1
transfer out of CSP; expungement of the falsified safety concerns; a return to double cell
2
status; and money damages.
3
4
D.
Analysis
1.
Unrelated claims
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) states: “A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim,
6
or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it
7
has against an opposing party.” “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but
8
Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against
9
Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not
10
only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s],
11
but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation
12
Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file
13
without prepayment of the required fees.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
14
2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (“Persons . . . may
15
be joined in one action as defendants if . . . any right to relief is asserted against them
16
jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
17
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences . . . .”)
18
Plaintiff‟s initial complaint alleged that Defendants Gipson, Drew, Pena, Hall, King,
19
Aceves, and an unnamed Superintendent conspired to torture Plaintiff
with
20
electroconvulsive therapy out of discrimination, and violated his Privacy Act rights and
21
copyrights. Plaintiff was advised in the Court‟s prior screening order that he would not
22
be permitted to change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his
23
amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.)
24
Nevertheless, Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint alleges numerous unrelated
25
claims. Plaintiff‟s allegations regarding his classification and housing placement,
26
attempts to encourage him to debrief, his validation as a gang associate, threats against
27
him due to his gang association, the confiscation of his resentencing notice, and his
28
7
1
being given used razors, bear no apparent relation to his original claims regarding
2
electroconvulsive therapy, Privacy Act rights, and copyrights. The Court also notes that
3
Plaintiff has raised several of these claims in prior actions. See, e.g., Hubbard v.
4
Corcoran State Prison, No. 1:13-cv-01736-AWI-MJS (PC) (classification and housing
5
decisions, gang validation); Hubbard v. Corcoran State Prison, No. 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-
6
MJS (confiscation of resentencing notice);
7
These claims do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
8
transactions and occurrences. They may not be joined in this action. If Plaintiff wishes to
9
pursue these allegations, he must do so in a separate suit. The Court will not address
10
whether these allegations state a cognizable claim, and will recommend that these
11
claims be dismissed.
12
2.
Excessive Force
13
The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects
14
prisoners from the use of excessive physical force. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 36
15
(2010); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992). To state an Eighth Amendment
16
claim, a plaintiff must allege that the use of force was an “unnecessary and wanton
17
infliction of pain.” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2001). The malicious
18
and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates contemporary standards of
19
decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9.
20
Not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of
21
action.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. “The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and
22
unusual punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis
23
uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the
24
conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir.
25
2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force,
26
not de minimis injuries).
27
Whether force used by prison officials was excessive is determined by inquiring if
28
8
1
the “force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or
2
maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6-7. The Court must
3
look at the need for application of force; the relationship between that need and the
4
amount of force applied; the extent of the injury inflicted; the extent of the threat to the
5
safety of staff and inmates as reasonably perceived by prison officials; and any efforts
6
made to temper the severity of the response. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321
7
(1986).
8
Plaintiff‟s complaint contains three allegations of excessive force involving
9
electroconvulsive therapy. First, on February 9, 2014, Defendants Gipson, Swift, Garcia,
10
Perez,
L.J.
Williams,
Hirachetta,
De
Ochoa,
Rodriguez,
and
Kellogs
used
11
electroconvulsive therapy and threatened to kill Plaintiff if he did not debrief or inform on
12
others. Second, in an undated incident, Defendant Pena used electroconvulsive therapy
13
and threatened to kill Plaintiff because Plaintiff had seen Defendant Pena engage in
14
illegal activities. Lastly, on April 1, 2014, Defendants Drew, Rodriguez, and L.J. Williams
15
used electroconvulsive therapy and made sexually harassing comments to Plaintiff and
16
threated to kill him.
17
Allegations that defendants used electroconvulsive therapy, psychosurgery,
18
lobotomy, stereotactic surgery, deconstruction of brain tissue, electronic stimulation to
19
the brain, and “galvanization” against Plaintiff are so implausible, outlandish, and far-
20
fetched as not to be believed. See Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)
21
(section 1915(d) accords judges the authority to “pierce the veil of the complaint‟s factual
22
allegations” and dismiss claims “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios”). The Court
23
will recommend that these claims be dismissed.
24
3.
Privacy Rights and Copyrights
25
Plaintiff generally alleges that unspecified individuals are impinging on his
26
copyrights by exposing his creating art, and are attempting to obtain his personal
27
information to broadcast it to others.
28
9
1
Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally
2
participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons
3
v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton,
4
588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
5
2002). Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of
6
respondeat superior, as each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct.
7
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235. Supervisors may only be held liable
8
if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act
9
to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v.
10
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570
11
(9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th
12
Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).
13
Plaintiff has not linked any named defendants to his privacy and copyright claims.
14
He was advised of this deficiency in the Court‟s prior screening order, but failed to
15
correct it. No useful purpose would be served by permitting Plaintiff a further opportunity
16
to amend these claims.
17
4.
Declaratory Relief
18
In addition to damages, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, but because his claims
19
for damages necessarily entail a determination whether his rights were violated, his
20
separate request for declaratory relief is subsumed by those claims. Rhodes v.
21
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 566 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Plaintiff‟s claim for
22
declaratory relief should be dismissed.
23
E.
Conclusion
24
Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims against any defendants. The Court
25
will recommend that Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
26
III.
27
REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the court to consolidate actions
28
10
1
involving a common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves
2
the purposes of judicial economy and convenience. “The district court has broad
3
discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors
4
Research Co. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 877
5
F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to consolidate actions, the court weighs
6
the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and
7
prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop, Inc.,
8
720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
9
Plaintiff seeks to consolidate Case No. 1:14-cv-00042-AWI-JLT with the instant
10
action. Plaintiff argues that the claims in both cases are related, but does not explain the
11
alleged relationship between the two cases or how consolidation would result in
12
economy and convenience. The Court in Case No. 1:14-cv-00042-AWI-JLT has ordered
13
Plaintiff to show cause why that action should not be dismissed, and it appears the Court
14
has concluded that the action is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
15
(1994). Accordingly, consolidation of the actions would be impractical at this stage of the
16
proceedings.
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Plaintiff‟s request to consolidate
17
18
be denied.
19
IV.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
20
Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint fails to state any cognizable claim. He
21
previously was advised of pleading deficiencies and afforded the opportunity to correct
22
them. He failed to do so. No useful purpose would be served by once again advising
23
Plaintiff of those deficiencies and giving him yet another chance to correct them. Further
24
leave to amend should be denied.
25
The undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed with prejudice, that
26
dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that the Clerk of the
27
Court terminate any and all pending motions and close the case.
28
11
1
The Findings and Recommendation 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)(1).
3
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the Findings and Recommendation, the
4
parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned
5
“Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond
6
to another party‟s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being
7
served with a copy of that party‟s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
8
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court‟s
9
order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 30, 2014
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?