Williams v. Santiago

Filing 24

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case for Failure to State Claim without Leave to Amend re 22 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/6/19. This Case is Assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. The New Case No. is: 1:16-cv-01065-DAD-JDP. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JESSICA SANTIAGO,

15

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01065-JDP
SCREENING ORDER
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE
CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
ECF No. 22
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in this civil

20

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed March

21

15, 2018, ECF No. 22, is before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff

22

raises claims related to his right to refuse medical treatment and to use his access-hall card.

23

These claims are not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

24

Accordingly, we recommend that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

25

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

26

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 25, 2016. ECF No. 1. On November 1, 2016, the

27

court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 7. On February 13, 2017,

28

the court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found it again stated no cognizable
1

1

claims. ECF No. 9. On March 1, 2017, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. ECF

2

No. 10. The court dismissed the case with prejudice on April 7, 2017, for failure to state a claim.

3

ECF No. 11. Plaintiff appealed on April 24, 2017. ECF No. 12. On November 9, 2017, in a

4

separate case brought by the plaintiff in this case, the Ninth Circuit reversed this district’s practice

5

of allowing magistrate judges to enter screening orders based upon the plaintiff’s consent before

6

all parties in the case were served. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017)

7

(holding that “consent of all parties (including unserved defendants) is a prerequisite to a

8

magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to enter dispositive decisions”). Following that decision, the Ninth

9

Circuit vacated the order of dismissal in this case and remanded. ECF No. 19. On February 28,

10

2018, we entered an order directing plaintiff to file either a notice to stand on a previous

11

complaint or a third amended complaint. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff filed his third amended

12

complaint on March 15, 2018. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff re-alleges his procedural due process claim

13

and his right to refuse medical treatment claim.
STATEMENT OF FACTS1

14

II.

15

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”). ECF No. 22 at 1.

16

Defendant is a unit supervisor at CSH. Id. at 3. In or around March 2016, plaintiff stopped

17

taking his blood pressure medicine, rendering his hypertension uncontrolled. Id. at Ex. C. On

18

April 5, 2016, defendant told plaintiff “that because [plaintiff] refused to take the medications that

19

had been prescribed for him . . . [defendant] was placing his access-hall card on a medical hold.”

20

Id. at 2.2
The hold on plaintiff’s access-hall card prevented him from using the card to enter and

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

We draw the following facts from plaintiff’s third amended complaint, ECF No. 22, and accept
them as true for screening purposes. We treat the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s complaint as part
of the pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to
a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.”).
2
The complaint does not state whether plaintiff’s access-hall card was placed on hold or whether
defendant merely threatened to place the access-card on hold. Compare id. at 5 (“. . . defendant .
. . in threatening to place [plaintiff’s] access hall-card on hold . . .”), and id. at Ex. A (categorizing
the action of defendant as a “threat” to place plaintiff’s “level on hold”), with id. at Ex. C
(categorizing plaintiff’s grievance as plaintiff having “been confined to the unit on a medical hold
for not taking . . . medications”). However, drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiff, we infer
that plaintiff’s access-hall card was placed on hold.
1

2

1

exit the “unit-6 housing facility” at CSH. Id. at 2. For individuals without access-hall cards,

2

there is an alternative procedure for accessing the unit: staff open the door for patients when

3

patients ring the doorbell. Id. at Ex. B.

4

III.

SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

5

The in forma pauperis statute provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if

6

the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may

7

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain a short and plain statement

8

that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim

9

to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The

10

plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice.

11

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to

12

infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679.

13

The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med.

14

Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011)).

15

Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an

16

enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir.

17

2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). The court must construe a litigant’s complaint liberally when

18

he is proceeding without counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).

19

Section 1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a right secured by federal

20

law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 916 (2017). To state a claim

21

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must (1) allege the deprivation of a right secured by the U.S.

22

Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) allege that the deprivation was committed by a

23

person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). A person

24

deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative

25

act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required

26

to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch.

27

Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

28

Cir. 1978)).
3

1
2
3

IV.

ANALYSIS
A. Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to refuse

4

unwanted medical treatment. A “competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty

5

interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.” Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of

6

Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990). We decide whether plaintiff’s right to refuse treatment was

7

violated by balancing plaintiff’s “liberty interests against the relevant state interests.” Id. at 279

8

(quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321 (1982)). We consider “the need for the

9

government action in question, the relationship between the need and the action, the extent of

10

harm inflicted, and whether the action was taken in good faith or for the purpose of causing

11

harm.” Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997).

12

Plaintiff refused to take his blood pressure medicine and his hypertension was

13

uncontrolled. In response, defendant limited plaintiff’s access-hall card, reducing the ease with

14

which plaintiff could enter and exit the unit-6 housing facility. Plaintiff does not allege that he

15

took blood pressure medicine because of the access-hall card restriction or for any other reason.

16

Plaintiff does not allege for what purpose he uses the unit-6 housing facility, how often he needs

17

to enter and exit it, or any specific instances when he was unable to access the unit, either with his

18

access-hall card or using the doorbell. Plaintiff does not allege how long his access-hall card was

19

placed on hold. It does not appear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff suffered any harm,

20

apart from some potential inconvenience entering and exiting the unit-6 housing facility. Indeed,

21

an exhibit attached to the complaint indicates that plaintiff was able to access the unit with staff

22

assistance. Plaintiff presents no evidence that defendant acted in bad faith. The facts alleged by

23

plaintiff are insufficient to for this court to evaluate whether plaintiff’s right to refuse treatment

24

was violated. See Plumeau, 130 F.3d at 438. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient

25

facts to allege a “plausible claim” for relief regarding his right to refuse medical treatment. See

26

Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570.

27
28

B. Procedural Due Process
Plaintiff claims that his liberty interest in not being punished without due process was
4

1

violated when his access-hall card was restricted. The Due Process Clause protects individuals

2

from deprivations of liberty without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. A procedural

3

due process claim consists of two parts: (1) a life, liberty, or property interest that has been

4

subject to interference by the state; and (2) constitutionally insufficient procedures “attendant

5

upon the deprivation.” Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1990).

6

Not all potential liberty deprivations require the same level of procedural protections. See

7

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 224 (2005).

8

Plaintiff argues that he was deprived of his access-hall card after he was found guilty of a

9

disciplinary violation without notice, a hearing, or any of the other procedural requirements listed

10

in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974). See ECF No. 22 at 4. However, the alleged

11

facts indicate that plaintiff’s access-hall card was restricted as an administrative measure in

12

response to a health concern, not as a disciplinary violation. Plaintiff refused to take his

13

medicine, leaving his hypertension uncontrolled. Therefore, defendant placed plaintiff’s access-

14

hall card on a hold, preventing plaintiff from entering and exiting the unit-6 housing facility

15

without staff assistance. This trivial loss of privileges is not the sort of deprivation to which the

16

Wolff procedural rights attach. See Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 886 n.7 (8th Cir.

17

2006) (finding that a civil detainee’s deprivation of “access to the canteen and outside vendors

18

and computer privileges” to be de minimis restrictions) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539

19

n.20 (1979)). Accordingly, plaintiff’s procedural due process claim must fail.

20

V.

CONCLUSION

21

We have screened plaintiff’s third amended complaint and find that it fails to state a

22

cognizable claim. Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to amend his complaint. Any

23

further leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, we recommend that the court dismiss

24

plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. See Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood, 759, F.3d 1112, 1116

25

(9th Cir. 2014) (“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of . . . leave to amend.”

26

(quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995))); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446,

27

1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that a pro se litigant was entitled to notice of the deficiencies in his

28
5

1

complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by

2

amendment).

3

VI.

4

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the

5

ORDER

findings and recommendations.

6

VII.

RECOMMENDATION

7

We recommend that plaintiff’s third amended complaint, ECF No. 22, be dismissed for

8

failure to state a claim for relief. The complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because

9

amendment would be futile.

10

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding

11

over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 14 days of the service

12

of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and

13

recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be

14

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding

15

district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
Dated:
19

March 6, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22

No. 204

23
24
25
26
27
28
6