Campbell v. Beard et al

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Recommending Dismissal of Complaint 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/9/15. Referred to Judge O'Neill; 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ANTHONY TYRONE CAMPBELL, SR.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

16

Case No. 1:14-cv-01218 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
COMPLAINT
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff Anthony Tyrone Campbell, Sr., (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding

18
19

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this

20

action on August 4, 2014. He names Director Jeffrey Beard, Chief of Appeals J. A. Zamora,

21

Warden P. D. Brazelton, Chief Deputy Warden R. Fisher, Jr., Associate Warden J. Buckley, Captain

22

D. B. Allen, Lieutenant C. Nevarez, Appeals Coordinator J. Morgan, and Prison Guard D. Cardenas

23

as Defendants.

24

A.

25

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

26

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

27

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

28

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
1

1
2
3
4

monetary relief from a defendant who is 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 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other
federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092
(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or
omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior
liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d
1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009);
Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim
for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
B.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi,

California. The events giving rise to this action took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at
Pleasant Valley State Prison.
Plaintiff alleges the following. On July 3, 2013, an administrative segregation unit placement
notice (CDC 114-D) was generated based on Plaintiff’s commission of battery on a peace officer
2

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

with serious injury. On July 26, 2013, a disciplinary hearing was held. It was determined that the
initial CDC 114-D failed to provide any explanation or circumstances of the alleged incident from
which Plaintiff could prepare an adequate defense. Therefore, a new CDC 114-D was ordered and
subsequently issued on August 6, 2013.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant D. Cardenas deliberately falsified the date on the August 6,
2013, CDC 114-D form and falsely indicated the actual date of Plaintiff’s placement in
administrative segregation. The act was committed to cover up the Defendant’s violation of a
CDCR policy and time constraint regulation.
On August 7, 2013, Defendant D. Cardenas collaborated with Defendant D. B. Allen and
urged the reviewer not to remedy the wrong.
On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff was summoned to appear before a second initial classification
hearing at Pleasant Valley State Prison. The committee members included Defendants Fisher,
Buckley, and Allen. Plaintiff protested the elapsed time constraint violation. Defendants denied
Plaintiff’s request and allowed the illegal CDCR 114-D to be considered.
Plaintiff appealed the decision. On October 8, 2013, Defendant Morgan denied the appeal
despite clear and convincing knowledge of a constitutional violation. Also on October 8, 2013,
Defendant Brazelton willfully failed to remedy the wrong at the second level of review despite clear
and convincing knowledge of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brazelton acknowledged
the wrong, but stated that the initial CDC 114-D dated July 3, 2013, did not provide enough
information for Plaintiff to prepare an adequate defense, and for this reason a new 114-D was issued
on August 6, 2013.
On June 2, 2014, Defendant Zamora failed to remedy the wrong at the third level of review.
Defendant Zamora further stated untruthfully that Plaintiff was issued a new CDC 114-D prior to the
disciplinary hearing.
Plaintiff states Defendant Beard failed to enforce policy and willfully allowed the
constitutional violation and abuse of power to stand on final administrative review.
Plaintiff requests the disposition of the disciplinary hearing be rescinded and Plaintiff’s lost
time credits be restored. He further requests compensatory damages for pain and suffering and
3

1
2
3

mental anguish due to long term confinement in segregation. Last, he requests punitive damages for
Defendants’ wanton and deliberate violations and abuses of power.
C.

4

1.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the
violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009);
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of
Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist
some causal connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75
(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v.
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012).

14
15

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff fails to state how Defendant Nevarez participated in the violations at issue.
Plaintiff must specifically state how each named Defendant personally acted to deprive him of his
rights.
2.

Placement in Administrative Segregation

With respect to placement in administrative segregation, due process requires only that
prison officials hold an informal nonadversary hearing within a reasonable time after the prisoner is
segregated, inform the prisoner of the charges against him or the reasons for considering segregation,
and allow the prisoner to present his views. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01 (9th
Cir. 1986) (quotation marks omitted), abrogated in part on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995); accord Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003).
Prisoners are not entitled to detailed written notice of charges, representation by counsel or counsel
substitute, an opportunity to present witnesses, or a written decision describing the reasons for
placing the prisoner in administrative segregation. Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1100-01 (quotation marks
omitted). Further, due process does not require disclosure of the identity of any person providing
information leading to the placement of a prisoner in administrative segregation. Id. (quotation
4

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

marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff readily admits prison officials held a hearing on July 26, 2013, concerning a
notice of placement in administrative segregation generated on July 3, 2013. At the hearing, it was
determined that Plaintiff had not been given sufficient information concerning the placement in
order to present a defense. Therefore, a new notice was requested in order to provide Plaintiff with
sufficient information. On August 6, 2013, the notice was generated and provided to Plaintiff.
Subsequently a hearing was held wherein Plaintiff made his opposition known and the committee
members determined that a placement in administrative segregation was necessary. Based on the
facts alleged, it is clear that all due process requirements were met under § 1983. Because the
defects in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the Court will recommend that the
complaint be dismissed.
3.

Heck Bar

Plaintiff also appears to challenge the disciplinary hearing held with respect to the underlying
offense of battery on a peace officer. Plaintiff requests that the disciplinary hearing be rescinded and
the forfeited time credits be restored.
“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief
sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading
to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-2,
125 S.Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005).
Where, as here, “success in a . . . [section] 1983 damages action would implicitly question
the validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the litigant must first achieve favorable
termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge the underlying
conviction or sentence.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004)
(citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
648 (1997) (applying Heck to a prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits were affected).
Because the punishment imposed at the disciplinary hearing affects the duration of Plaintiff’s
sentence, Plaintiff’s due process claim is barred until such time as Plaintiff invalidates the result of
5

1

the disciplinary hearing.

2

4.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of
life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that
one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005).
Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he
cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his
appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d
639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)).
D.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state any cognizable federal claims against any named
Defendant. Because the nature of the deficiencies are not curable by amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa,
698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130, the Court RECOMMENDS that
the Complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, thus terminating the action.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Inmate Appeals Process

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
1991).

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

June 9, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
6