Williams v. King et al

Filing 8

ORDER finding due process and eight amendment claims cognizable against Defendants Young, Perez and DeLeon and dismissing Defendants King and Price and equal protection claims with prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/13/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 COREY WILLIAMS, 10 Case No. 1:15-cv-00543-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, 11 ORDER FINDING DUE PROCESS AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS COGNIZABLE AGAINST DEFENDANTS YOUNG, PEREZ, & DeLEON v. 12 AUDREY KING, et al., 13 ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS KING AND PRICE AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE Defendants. 14 _____________________________________/ 15 (Doc. 12) 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 A. 19 Plaintiff, Corey Williams, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed Background 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 9, 2015. Plaintiff’s Original 21 Complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to file a first amended complaint curing 22 identified linkage deficiencies.1 23 On February 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint that is presently before 24 the Court for screening. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a 25 cognizable claim under the Due Process Clause and Eighth Amendment against Defendants 26 Young, Perez, and DeLeon upon which he may proceed.2 Plaintiff, however, fails to state any 27 28 1 2 Plaintiff’s claim based on not receiving hot meals was dismissed with prejudice as not cognizable. Plaintiff will receive instructions for service on these Defendants via a concurrently issued order. 1 claims under the Equal Protection Clause and fails to link Defendants King and Price to any of his 2 factual allegations which are DISMISSED with prejudice. 3 B. 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a Screening Requirement and Standard 5 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 6 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 7 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that 8 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 9 (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 10 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to 11 state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 12 13 14 C. Pleading Requirements 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) "Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 15 exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 16 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain 17 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). 18 "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and 19 the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 20 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 21 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 22 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff 23 must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is plausible on its 24 face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are accepted 25 as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 26 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557. 27 While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 28 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally 2 1 and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations," Neitze 3 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may 4 not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled," Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union 5 Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 6 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. Wal-Mart 7 Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 8 The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are 9 ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 10 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 11 Further, “repeated and knowing violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s ‘short 12 and plain statement’ requirement are strikes as ‘fail[ures] to state a claim,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 13 when the opportunity to correct the pleadings has been afforded and there has been no 14 modification within a reasonable time.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2013). 15 16 2. Linkage and Causation Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 17 other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 18 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 19 Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of 20 substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 21 conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) 22 (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation 23 marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, 24 or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal 25 rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); 26 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 27 Plaintiff’s allegations must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 28 deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the 3 1 presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 2 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of 3 misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 4 F.3d at 969. However, prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have 5 their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe, 627 F.3d 6 at 342. 7 DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s Allegations 8 A. 9 Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California. He 10 brings this suit against CSH Executive Director Audrey King, CSH Hospital Administrator 11 Brandon Price, Psyche Techs Christopher DeLeon and Wendy Perez, Senior Psych Tech Ian 12 Young, and Does 1 through 10 for violation of his constitutional rights with regard to his 13 conditions of confinement at CSH. Plaintiff’s claims arise from a policy, implemented on March 14 5, 2015, that required diabetic detainees such as Plaintiff to submit to blood glucose level testing 15 before being fed. If a detainee failed to submit to the testing, he was denied the meal that was 16 being served. Plaintiff alleges he was denied food when he stated he has the right to refuse 17 medical treatment. 18 B. 19 Plaintiff’s claims arise from the deprivation of meals due to his refusal to submit to blood Denial of Meals 20 glucose level testing. As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to treatment more considerate than 21 that afforded pretrial detainees or convicted criminals. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th 22 Cir. 2004). His right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the 23 substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 24 (1982). However, civil detainees are not free persons with “full civil rights,” Seaton v. Mayberg, 25 610 F.3d 530, 535 (9th Cir. 2010), and it is well-established that effective institutional 26 management is a legitimate, non-punitive governmental interest, Jones, 393 F.3d at 932. The 27 Eighth Amendment provides “a minimum standard of care” for determining the rights of pretrial 28 detainees. Or. Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1120 (9th Cir.2003), quoting City of Revere 4 1 v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). Thus, a civil detainee’s allegations that state a 2 claim under the Eighth Amendment also state a claim under the Due Process Clause. 3 “Food is one of life’s basic necessities,” and the government is obligated to provide those 4 in its custody “with adequate sustenance on a daily basis.” Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 8125 14 (9th Cir. 2009) (denial of 16 meals in 23 days is a sufficiently serious deprivation within the 6 meaning of the Eighth Amendment); see also Jones, 393 F.3d at 931-32 (civil detainees entitled to 7 more considerate treatment than convicted criminals). Adequate food is a basic human need 8 protected by the Eighth Amendment. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. `1982), 9 (abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. O'Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)). While prison food 10 need not be “tasty or aesthetically pleasing,” it must be “adequate to maintain health.” LeMaire v. 11 Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993). 12 Plaintiff alleges that, because he declined to submit to glucose testing, he was completely 13 denied meals from the evening meal of March 5, 2015, until the breakfast meal of March 11, 2015. 14 This amounts to a cognizable claim under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment 15 against Defendants DeLeon, Perez, and Does 1-10 who acknowledged problems with the policy, 16 but refused to provide Plaintiff meals when he declined to submit to glucose testing; and against 17 Defendant Young for implementing the policy and failing to ensure that staff no longer followed it 18 once he realized it violated detainees’ rights. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) 19 (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 20 Plaintiff, however, fails to link Defendants King and Price to any of his factual allegations. 21 Plaintiff appears to have intended to pursue these two Defendants because of their supervisory 22 positions. However, he fails to state any allegations to show that they either personally 23 participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to 24 act to prevent them; or promulgated or Aimplemented a policy so deficient that the policy >itself is 25 a repudiation of constitutional rights= and is >the moving force of the constitutional violation.=@ 26 Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 27 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory 28 personnel for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 5 1 U.S. at 677. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendants King and Price. 2 Further, although Plaintiff also refers to the Equal Protection Clause, he fails to state 3 allegations to show either that he was a member of a protected class, Hartmann v. California 4 Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 5 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013), or that he was intentionally treated differently than similarly situated 6 individuals without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon 7 Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 601-02 (2008); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 8 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972). Plaintiff also 9 fails to state any allegations upon which to infer discriminatory intent by any of the named 10 Defendants. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-240 (1976); Serrano, 345 F.3d at 108111 82; Freeman v. Arpio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable 12 claim under the Equal Protection Clause. 13 C. 14 In addition to damages and injunctive relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief. Because Declaratory Relief 15 Plaintiff’s claims for damages necessarily entail a determination whether his rights were violated, 16 his separate request for declaratory relief is subsumed by those claims. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 17 F.3d 559, 565-66 n.8 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the declaratory relief claim shall be dismissed. 18 19 ORDER Plaintiff’s allegation that he was deprived of food because he declined to submit to blood 20 glucose testing supports a cognizable claim under the Due Process Clause and for violation of the 21 Eighth Amendment against Defendants Young, Perez, and De Leon. Plaintiff, however, fails to 22 link Defendants King and Price to any of his factual allegations, and his Equal Protection claim is 23 not cognizable against any of the named Defendants. 24 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This action shall proceed on the First Amended Complaint on Plaintiff=s claims 26 under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 27 Young, Perez, and De Leon; and 28 // 6 1 2. 2 Defendants King and Price and all claims under the Equal Protection Clause are dismissed with prejudice. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 6 December 13, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 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 7 .

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?