Vaca v. Bowen et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/11/15: Thirty-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint - blank form)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
MARCOS VACA,

10

Plaintiff,

11

Case No. 1:14-cv-01327 DLB
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

12

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
13

KIRBY, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
Plaintiff Marcos Vaca (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

17 pauperis in this civil rights action. The action was transferred to this Court on August 25, 2014.
18 Plaintiff names “McFarland MCCF Central Valley,” Warden Bowen, Assistant Warden Nadal,
1
19 and Lieutenants Kirby, Garcia and Cordova as Defendants.

20 I.

SCREENING STANDARD

21

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

22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
23 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
26 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
27 paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on September 4, 2014.

1 appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
2 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

3

4 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
5 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
6 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing
7 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
8 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550
9 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or

10

11 other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d
12 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006);
13 Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions
14 or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior
15 liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609
16 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir.
17 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
18 plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962,
19 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility
20 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
21
22

II.

ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. The events at issue occurred

23 while he was incarcerated at Central Valley Modified Community Correctional Facility (“MCCF”)
24 in McFarland, California.
25

Plaintiff’s complaint is brief. He alleges that his access to the courts has been hindered on

26 numerous occassions. Most recently, on April 24, 2014, he attempted to mail legal mail between
27 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. Plaintiff is “assigned” during this time, however. ECF No. 1, at 3. He states
28 that Defendants Garcia and Cordova told him that he must do legal work on his own time.
2

1 Plaintiff argues that the prison cannot make him choose between class time or processing legal
2 work.
3

Nonetheless, Plaintiff continued to mail his legal mail. As a result, he was penalized and

4 disciplined. Plaintiff received a loss of privileges and a loss of thirty days’ good time credits.
5

Plaintiff states that staff members know that he has a pending case against Riverside

6 County.
7

Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

8

For relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court restore his lost time, dismiss the 115 and award

9 money damages.
10 III.

DISCUSSION

11

1.

12

Plaintiff does not allege any facts involving Defendants Bowen, Kirby or Nadal. While he

Defendants Bowen, Nadal and Kirby

13 attaches exhibits, the Court will not attempt to guess as to Plaintiff’s intentions.
14

As explained above, Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or omissions of each

15 named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under section
16 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th
17 Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at
18 934.
19

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Bowen, Nadal and

20 Kirby.
21

2.

22

Plaintiff names MCCF as a Defendant. Plaintiff is advised that he may not sustain an

MCCF

23 action against a state prison.
24

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an

25 unconsenting state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.
26 1991) (citation omitted); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996);
27 Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v.
28 State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits
3

1 against state agencies as well as those where the state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural
2 Resources Defense Council v. California Dep’t of Tranp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996);
3 Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that
4 Nevada Department of Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity);
5 Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Because
6 MCCF is a part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, which is a state
7 agency, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.
8

This deficiency cannot cured.

9

3.

10

Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects

11 prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of
12 confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v.
13 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347,
14 101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and
15 often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of
16 pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted).
17 Thus, conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving
18 standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment.
19 Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,
20 737, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346.
21

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food,

22 clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th
23 Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains
24 while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks
25 omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials
26 were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511
27 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554
28 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v.
4

1 Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
2

Plaintiff has not made any allegations that would rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment

3 violation. To the extent that he believes that an alleged inability to mail his legal mail violates the
4 Eighth Amendment, he is mistaken. Only conditions devoid of legitimate penological purpose or
5 contrary to evolving standards of decency violate the Eighth Amendment. Moreover, there is no
6 indication that Plaintiff’s safety was implicated in any way.
7

If Plaintiff suggests that his punishment on the 115 violates the Eighth Amendment, he is

8 also mistaken. While Plaintiff may not have agreed with the discipline, which included a thirty
9 day loss of yard time, phone time and packages, there is nothing about the discipline that rises to
10 the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
11

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

12

4.

13

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey,

First Amendment

14 518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir.
15 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for
16 relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to
17 contemplated or existing litigation.” Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th
18 Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 132
19 S.Ct. 1823 (2012); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 518
20 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655.
21

Plaintiff alleges that his access to the courts was hindered numerous times. However,

22 while he states that he has an action against Riverside County, he does not allege that he suffered
23 any actual injury during his prosecution of the action. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim
24 under the First Amendment.
25

5.

26

In Preiser v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court held that a habeas action, rather than a suit

Heck Bar

27 under section 1983, is the proper vehicle for a state prisoner to challenge “the fact or duration of
28 his confinement.” 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Actions under
5

1 section 1983 are not cognizable when the prisoner seeks “immediate release from prison” or a
2 shortening of the term of confinement. Id. at 482. The Court expanded on this principle in Heck
3 v. Humphrey, explaining that even when a plaintiff seeks monetary damages rather than a speedier
4 release, federal courts may not consider section 1983 claims that impugn the lawfulness of
5 confinement. See Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 485, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). When a
6 state prisoner’s challenge “necessarily impl[ies] ... the invalidity of” a prison disciplinary hearing,
7 the action must be pursued through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Edwards v. Balisok,
8 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); see also Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d
9 1023, 1024–25 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that § 1983 action against parole board defendants who
10 considered false information in denying parole was not cognizable because “the remedy [plaintiff]
11 ultimately seeks is parole”).
12

Here, Plaintiff seeks to restore his lost good time credits. However, as this would

13 necessarily implicate the length of his sentence, he cannot bring such a claim in a section 1983
14 action.
15

Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to dismiss his 115 and/or restore his good time

16 credits, he fails to state a claim under section 1983. This deficiency cannot be cured by
17 amendment
18

6.

19

At the end of his pleading, Plaintiff lists various sections of Title 15 which he believes

Title 15

20 have bene violated. However, the Court is unaware of any authority for the proposition that there
21 exists a private right of action available to Plaintiff for violation of Title 15 regulations and there
22 exist ample district court decisions holding to the contrary. E.g., Vasquez v. Tate, No. 1:10-cv23 1876 JLT (PC), 2012 WL 6738167, at *9 (E. D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012); Davis v. Powell, 901
24 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1211 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Meredith v. Overley, No. 1:12-cv-00455-MJS (PC), 2012
25 WL 3764029, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012); Parra v. Hernandez, No. 08cv0191-H (CAB), 2009
26 WL 3818376, at *8 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 13, 2009); Davis v. Kissinger, No. CIV S-04-0878 GEB DAD
27 P, 2009 WL 256574, at *12 n.4 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 3, 2009), adopted in full, 2009 WL 647350 (Mar.
28 10, 2009).
6

1

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for violation of Title 15. This cannot be cured by

2 amendment.
3 IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

4

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against any

5 Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend, if he can do so in
6 good faith. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
7 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). However,
8 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new and/or unrelated claims in his
9 amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607.
10

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

11 each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and
12 liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat
13 superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert.
14 denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be
15 [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
16 (citations omitted).
17

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa

18 County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without
19 reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220.
20

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSSED, with leave to amend, for failure to state a

22 claim against any Defendants;
23

2.

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

24

3.

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

25 amended complaint; and
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
7

1

4.

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

2 action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 11, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8