Smith v. Smith et al

Filing 11

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT And Granting LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1 ), Thirty-Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/2015. First Amended Complaint due by 2/17/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8
9

KENNETH ARDELL SMITH,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
CDC CORCORAN STATE PRISON,

13

Defendant.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-00805-BAM (PC)
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND
(ECF No. 1)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

15
16

I.

Screening Requirement and Standard

17

Plaintiff Kenneth Ardell Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se

18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s

19

complaint, filed on May 27, 2014, is currently before the Court for screening.

20

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

21

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or

23

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary

24

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28

25

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

26

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

27

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

28

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
1

1

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

2

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65

3

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge

4

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

5

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

6

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings

7

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

8

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially

9

plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each

10

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

11

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

12

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere

13

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

14

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations

15

II.

16

First Cause of Action

17

On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff was moved from general population and housed in

18

Administrative Segregation by Defendant Fisher. Plaintiff was unable to sleep properly and was

19

traumatized by Defendant Fisher. Plaintiff complained that life was hard to deal with and he had

20

no charges.

21

Second Cause of Action

22

Defendant refused to provide appropriate housing for Plaintiff. Plaintiff spent 60 days in

23

house and was very uncomfortable. He suffered brain burns and difficulty seeing.

24

Third Cause of Action

25

Correctional Lieutenant Commander Riverio housed Plaintiff in a cell to cause Plaintiff

26

more problems. Plaintiff had three total moves to different cells. The filthy cells injured

27

Plaintiff’s mind, eyes and skin complexion. Defendant Riverio failed to protect Plaintiff from

28
2

1

harm and humiliated Plaintiff about his past security beliefs. Plaintiff’s complaint ended after 50

2

to 60 days when he was returned to general housing.

3

Fourth Cause of Action

4

On July 4, 2009, Plaintiff reported that an inmate hit him from behind. Plaintiff was

5

injured to his left front tooth, along with cuts and a busted mouth. Officer Garcia falsely gave

6

Plaintiff a CDC 115 disciplinary report.

7

III.

8

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 18 and

9

Deficiencies of Complaint

fails to state a cognizable claim. However, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his

10

complaint. To assist Plaintiff with his amendment, Plaintiff is provided with the applicable

11

pleading and legal standards. Plaintiff should amend only those claims that he believes, in good

12

faith, state a cognizable claim for relief.

13

A. Pleading Standards

14

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and

15
16

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

17

As noted above, detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the

18

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,

19

556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as

20

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting

21

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are

22

not. Id; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

23

Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is short, but is difficult to read and understand. The

24

complaint does not set forth sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

25

Plaintiff’s complaint contains disjointed phrases and conclusory statements. If Plaintiff chooses

26

to amend his complaint, he should briefly and clearly state the facts giving rise to his claims for

27

relief against the named defendants.

28

///
3

1

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 states that “[a] party asserting a claim, counterclaim,

2
3

crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims

4

as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). “Thus multiple claims against a single

5

party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B

6

against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not

7

only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s] but also

8

to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees--for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits

9

to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of

10

the required fees.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

11

1915(g)).

12

Here, Plaintiff attempts to bring suit against multiple defendants for different incidents at

13

different times. For example, Plaintiff complains about his placement in Administrative

14

Segregation while simultaneously complaining about a false disciplinary write up. It is unclear if

15

these allegations are related. Plaintiff may not pursue unrelated claims against different

16

defendants in a single action. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint and it fails to

17

comply with Rule 18(a), all unrelated claims will be subject to dismissal.

18

3. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

19

Plaintiff names Corcoran State Prison as a defendant. Plaintiff may not sustain an action

20

against a state prison. The Eleventh Amendment “‘erects a general bar against federal lawsuits

21

brought against the state.’” Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065–66 (9th Cir.2010)

22

(quoting Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003)). As Corcoran State Prison is a part

23

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which is a state agency, it is

24

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. E.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.

25

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd.

26

of Medical Examiners, 678 F.3d 737, 740 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012).

27

///

28

///
4

1

B. Legal Standards

2
3

1. Administrative Segregation
The basis of Plaintiff’s complaint regarding his placement in administrative segregation

4

is unclear. To the extent Plaintiff is complaining about the lack of charges, it appears he is

5

complaining about denial of due process.

6

With respect to placement in administrative segregation, due process requires only that

7

prison officials hold an informal nonadversary hearing within a reasonable time after the prisoner

8

is segregated, inform the prisoner of the charges against him or the reasons for considering

9

segregation, and allow the prisoner to present his views. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080,

10

1100-01 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotation marks omitted), abrogated in part on other grounds, Sandin v.

11

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995); accord Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th

12

Cir. 2003). Prisoners are not entitled to detailed written notice of charges, representation by

13

counsel or counsel substitute, an opportunity to present witnesses, or a written decision

14

describing the reasons for placing the prisoner in administrative segregation. Toussaint, 801

15

F.2d at 1100-01 (quotation marks omitted). Further, due process does not require disclosure of

16

the identity of any person providing information leading to the placement of a prisoner in

17

administrative segregation. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

18

Plaintiff has not included sufficient facts to support a due process claim. Although he

19

alleges a lack of charges, he has not provided any factual details regarding his placement in

20

administrative segregation to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to cure this

21

deficiency.

22

23

2. Conditions of Confinement
Plaintiff appears to complain about the filthy conditions of the cells in Administrative

24

Segregation. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment

25

protects prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane

26

conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing

27

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) and Rhodes v.

28

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted).
5

1

While conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not

2

involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes,

3

452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which are devoid of legitimate

4

penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a

5

maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and

6

citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002);

7

Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346.

8
9

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food,
clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th

10

Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains

11

while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks

12

omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials

13

were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer,

14

511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels,

15

554 F.3d 807, 812–14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731;

16

Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998). A prisoner’s claim does not rise to the level

17

of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the

18

‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with

19

deliberate indifference in doing so. ’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)

20

(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)).

21

Deliberate indifference requires a showing that “prison officials were aware of a

22

“substantial risk of serious harm” to an inmate’s health or safety and that there was no

23

“reasonable justification for the deprivation, in spite of that risk.” Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150

24

(quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. The circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivations are

25

critical in determining whether the conditions complained of are grave enough to form the basis

26

of a viable Eighth Amendment claim.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731.

27
28

Here, Plaintiff has made conclusory statements regarding filthy cells, but does not
provide sufficient factual detail regarding the circumstances, nature and duration of the
6

1

deprivations. Further, Plaintiff has failed to allege that prison officials were deliberately

2

indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. Plaintiff will be given leave to

3

cure these deficiencies.

4
5

3. False Disciplinary Report
Plaintiff appears to allege his rights were violated by a false disciplinary report. An

6

inmate can state a cognizable claim arising from a false disciplinary report if the false report was

7

done in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutional rights or if the inmate was not afforded

8

procedural due process in connection with the resulting disciplinary proceedings as provided in

9

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1874). See Hines v.

10

Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir.1997) (retaliation); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1141

11

(7th Cir.1984) (finding that an allegation that a prison guard planted false evidence which

12

implicated an inmate in a disciplinary infraction failed to state a claim for which relief can be

13

granted where procedural due process protections are provided); Brown v. Leyva, 2009 WL

14

129879, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan.20, 2009) (prisoner failed to state cognizable due process or retaliation

15

claim based on allegedly false charges and reports); Rodgers v. Reynaga, 2009 WL 62130, *2

16

(E.D. Cal. Jan.8, 2009) (inmate’s allegations that defendants conspired to fabricate a false

17

criminal offense that resulted in his re-housing in administrative segregation failed to state a

18

cognizable retaliation or due process claim).

19

Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable retaliation claim based on a false disciplinary report.

20

Plaintiff has not asserted that the false disciplinary report was issued in retaliation for protected

21

conduct or that he was denied any procedural due process protections. Plaintiff will be given

22

leave to cure these deficiencies.

23

IV.

24

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 18 and

Conclusion and Order

25

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As noted above, the Court will provide

26

Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint and cure the identified deficiencies. Lopez

27

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

28
7

1

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what

2

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal,

3

556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations

4

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S.

5

at 555 (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by

6

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no

7

“buckshot” complaints).

8
9

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended

10

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.”

11

Local Rule 220.

12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

14

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rules of

15

Civil Procedure 8 and 18 and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

16

3.

17

amended complaint; and

18

4.

19

action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 13, 2015

23

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
8