Rios v. Ciuffini, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER directing the clerk's office to administratively re-designate this action as a 440 Civil Action and randomly reassign Magistrate Judge signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/26/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISRAEL RIOS,

12

1:15-cv-01028-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK=S
OFFICE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY
RE-DESIGNATE THIS ACTION AS A
440 CIVIL ACTION AND RANDOMLY
REASSIGN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KATHY CIUFFINI, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

This case was filed on July 6, 2015, by plaintiff Israel Rios, a state prisoner proceeding

21

pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)1 On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff was granted leave to

22

proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.)

23

The court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order

24

on October 4, 2016, dismissing the Complaint for violation of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of

25

Civil Procedure, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 10.) On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed the

26

First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 12.)

27
28

1

On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 6.)
1

1
2

II.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

3

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California.

4

The events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred when Plaintiff was

5

incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in Corcoran, California, in the custody of the

6

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

7

Gregory E. Strickland (Kings County District Attorney), Kathy Ciuffini (Deputy District

8

Attorney), and J. Torres (Correctional Officer (C/O), CSP).

9

Plaintiff’s allegations follow.

Plaintiff names as defendants

While housed at CSP, Plaintiff was issued a Rules

10

Violation Report (RVR) for possession of escape paraphernalia. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant

11

to the California Code of Regulation, Title 15, Crime Prevention and Correction, this charge

12

does not meet the criteria for seeking criminal prosecution.

13

was in charge of distribution of the RVR, told Plaintiff that he (Plaintiff) was not able to

14

postpone this matter to prepare any kind of defense.

Therefore, C/O M. Bravo, who

15

On March 30, 2014, Plaintiff was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing by Hearing

16

Officer Lieutenant E. Silva. Plaintiff submitted an inmate 602 appeal to the Office of Appeals

17

in Sacramento, alleging that he was not properly advised. Plaintiff was scheduled for court on

18

July 10, 2014, and he addressed the matter with C/O M. Bravo who advised Plaintiff to contact

19

C/O J. Torres. Ms. J. Torres is in charge of disciplinary records. When Plaintiff addressed the

20

matter with Torres and provided her with the case number and the courthouse hearing the case,

21

Torres constantly neglected the facts. In an attempt to misguide Plaintiff, Torres referred to

22

another case for which Plaintiff had already been sentenced in Kern County in August 2014.

23

Torres’ negligence led to D.A. Gregory E. Strickland wrongfully filing charges and allowing

24

Deputy D.A. Kathy Ciuffini to prosecute the case, threatening Plaintiff with life in prison under

25

the Three Strikes law. Plaintiff would not take a deal due to the violation of his due process

26

rights. Deputy D.A. Ciuffini transferred the case to Superior Court and pushed for a trial

27

schedule for September 22, 2014. Plaintiff appeared at the Kings County Superior Court on

28

September 22, 2014 to start trial. Ciuffini again attempted to force Plaintiff to take a plea,
2

1

giving up his rights to file a claim, which Plaintiff did not agree to do. Still, all of the charges

2

were dismissed.

3
4

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as relief.
III.

DISCUSSION

5

This case was initially opened by this court on July 6, 2015, as a prisoner civil rights

6

action concerning conditions of confinement, and designated 550 suit (Prisoner: Civil Rights.)

7

(Court record.)

8

concern the conditions of his confinement.

9

properly advised about the charges against him and was wrongfully prosecuted in Superior

10

Court. Based on these allegations, this case should be re-designated as a civil case with nature

11

of suit as 440.

12

IV.

However, Plaintiff’s allegations in the First Amended Complaint do not
Instead, Plaintiff complains that he was not

CONCLUSION

13

Based on the foregoing, the Clerk’s Office is HEREBY DIRECTED to:

14

1.

Re-designate this action as a 440 civil action;

15

2.

Randomly assign this case to another magistrate judge, and to a district judge if

16

if needed, for any further proceedings which may be appropriate or required;

17

and

18

3.

The parties shall omit the PC designation from the new case number.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 26, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3