Wahl v. Sutton
Filing
23
ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to randomly Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim re 22 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/29/18. This case is assigned to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The New Case No. is: 1:16-cv-01576-LJO-BAM. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within 14-Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PETER GERARD WAHL,
12
Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
WARDEN SUTTON, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
13
14
Case No. 1:16-cv-01576-BAM (PC)
v.
15
Defendants.
(ECF No. 22)
16
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
17
18
19
I.
Introduction
20
Plaintiff Peter Gerard Wahl (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and
21
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action
22
on October 19, 2016, while confined at Wasco State Prison. (ECF No. 1.) On February 20, 2018,
23
the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and granted him leave to amend. (ECF
24
No. 21.) Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on March 1, 2018, is currently before the
25
Court for screening. (ECF No. 22.)
26
II.
Screening Requirement and Standard
27
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
28
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
1
1
1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
2
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
3
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
5
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
6
pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
7
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
8
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
9
1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
10
(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge
11
unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
12
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
13
To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
14
sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
15
for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted);
16
Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility
17
that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
18
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks
19
omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
20
A. Plaintiff’s Allegations
21
Plaintiff, formerly confined at Wasco State Prison, brings suit against Warden John
22
Sutton. Plaintiff alleges that on August 18, 2016, he was convicted for possession with intent to
23
sell marijuana and sentenced to 16 months in prison. He was transported to Wasco State Prison
24
in September 2016.
25
On November 30, 2016, the sentencing court ordered Plaintiff’s sentence reduced to a
26
misdemeanor with time deemed served. Plaintiff received a certified copy of the order with the
27
sentencing court’s seal on December 3, 2016. Plaintiff immediately began grievance processes
28
on December 4, 2016, and Defendant Sutton was “grieved as well.” (ECF No. 22 at p. 4.)
2
1
Plaintiff contends that the grievance processing was too slow. He also filed petitions for habeas
2
relief in Kern County Superior Court.
3
Plaintiff has learned, through post-release investigation, that the Clerk of Court did not
4
notify Defendant until 21 days after court-ordered release. Defendant continued to hold Plaintiff
5
as a state prisoner until December 29, 2016.
6
psychological, emotional and physical distress as a result of his confinement. Plaintiff further
7
alleges that Defendant Sutton knew or reasonably should have known through the prior
8
grievances that Plaintiff was being held unlawfully, but Defendant took no steps to rectify the
9
matter.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant exhibited callous indifference to Plaintiff’s grievances.
10
Plaintiff contends that the classification department was overburdened and understaffed during
11
this period.
12
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, along with damages.
13
B. Discussion
14
The crux of Plaintiff’s amended complaint is that he was held past his release date.
15
Eighth Amendment
16
A prisoner’s claim for damages resulting from excessive custody may support a legitimate
17
section 1983 claim. See Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985). “Detention
18
beyond the termination of a sentence could constitute cruel and unusual punishment [in violation
19
of the Eighth Amendment] if it is the result of ‘deliberate indifference’ to the prisoner’s liberty
20
interest; otherwise, such detention can be held to be unconstitutional only if it violates due
21
process.” Id. at 1354 (internal citations omitted).
22
Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a cognizable deliberate indifference
23
claim against Defendant Sutton. Plaintiff admits that he was released approximately 8 days after
24
defendants received a copy of the court’s order regarding resentencing. There is no indication
25
that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference following receipt of the court order.
26
Plaintiff himself admits that the classification department was overburdened and understaffed.
27
Although Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to notify prison officials via the grievance process,
28
there is no indication that Defendant Sutton knew of the grievances or of the reduced sentence
3
1
and failed to otherwise act.
2
Due Process
3
“The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from unlawful
4
state deprivation.” Ward v. Brown, 891 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2012). In assessing a
5
due process violation related to excessive custody, the “court’s first task is to determine whether
6
Paratt (random act) or Logan (official practice and procedure) controls.” Haygood, 769 F.2d at
7
1359. Random and unauthorized deprivations by state prison officers cannot be prevented by due
8
process hearings,” and “a remedial hearing after the injury can provide due process in a narrowly
9
limited class of cases.” Id. at 1357. However, “where the injury is the product of the operation of
10
state law, regulation or institutionalized practice, it is neither random nor unauthorized.” Id.
11
Thus,
12
13
14
15
16
[i]f the wrongful taking of liberty results from either affirmatively enacted or de
facto policies, practices or customs, the court must determine when the
responsible state officers received notice of a claim that a wrong was being done.
When an official with the authority to rectify an erroneous practice receives notice
of the wrongful practice and its harmful consequences, due process requires the
state to provide a hearing before a further denial of liberty can be said to be free
from § 1983 liability.
17
Id. at 1359. According to exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, it appears that
18
prison officials received a copy of the sentencing court’s order on December 21, 2016 (ECF No.
19
22 at p. 9), and Plaintiff was released from custody on December 29, 2016. There is no allegation
20
that Plaintiff’s failure to be released from immediate custody was due to a policy, practice or
21
custom of the prison. Rather, it appears to be a delay resulting from understaffing, and the not a
22
policy, practice or custom of Defendant Sutton or the prison.
23
III.
Conclusion and Recommendation
24
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint fails state a cognizable claim for relief. Despite being
25
provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the
26
deficiencies in his complaint, and thus further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith,
27
203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
28
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
4
1
2
3
4
district judge to this action.
Further, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
5
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
6
(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
7
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
8
Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
9
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
10
findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
11
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 29, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?