Edgar Pitts v. Matevousian et al
Filing
9
ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge; New case number is 1:17-cv-1658 DAD-SAB (PC); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under Bivens; Plaintiff's 5 motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on February 26, 2018 5 , be denied, as moot ; referred to Judge Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/10/18. Objections to F&R due by 8/13/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
EDGAR PITTS,
10
11
12
13
Case No.: 1:17-cv-01658- SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, et al.,
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED
(ECF No. 11)
14
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 5)
17
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff Edgar Pitts is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on April 23, 2018,
(ECF No. 8), and motion for a preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 5).
24
I.
25
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
26
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
27
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
28
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
1
1
“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that
2
“seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
3
1915(e)(2)(B).
4
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
5
pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
6
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
7
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
8
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate
9
that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v.
10
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
11
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings
12
liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
13
1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be
14
facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer
15
that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss
16
v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant
17
has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s
18
liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d
19
at 969.
20
II.
21
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
22
23
Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) the Florence ADX Warden, Andre Matevousian; (2)
Frederick Frandle, a Hearing Administrator; and (3) an unknown psychologist.
24
Plaintiff alleges that he was held in the SHU at Atwater U.S. Penitentiary for almost five
25
years after being involved in a fight that resulted in the death of his cellmate. Plaintiff is currently
26
being held in solitary confinement in the control unit at Florence ADX.
27
Plaintiff claims that he was denied housing in the general population and was confined in
28
the control unit due to retaliation by Warden Matevousian. Previously, Warden Matevousian
2
1
insisted that Plaintiff volunteer to enroll in the Secure Mental Health Stepdown Program, or
2
threatened that he would be held in the SHU indefinitely. Plaintiff declined this ultimatum.
3
Plaintiff then filed a “Sensitive Nine” complaint to the Western Region to challenge Warden
4
Matevousian’s threats. In retaliation and in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, the
5
warden ordered a psychological report that stated that Plaintiff could be held in solitary
6
confinement in the control unit at Florence ADX. Warden Matevousian was formerly the warden
7
at Atwater U.S. Penitentiary, and is currently the warden at Florence ADX.
8
Plaintiff claims that an unknown psychologist conspired with Warden Matevousian to
9
have Plaintiff sent to solitary confinement in the control unit. Namely, the unknown psychologist
10
did not interview or evaluate Plaintiff, but wrote a memorandum indicating that Plaintiff had no
11
mental health issues which would preclude his placement in the control unit.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that a hearing was held regarding Plaintiff’s ADX placement, and
12
13
the hearing administrator was Defendant Frandle.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Frandle
14
followed the report of the unknown psychologist, and omitted from his hearing report a
15
psychiatric diagnostic impression to the contrary.
16
Matevousian’s retaliation against Plaintiff.
This was done to assist with Warden
17
III.
18
DISCUSSION
19
A. Application of Supreme Court Decision of Ziglar v. Abbasi
20
In Ziglar, the Supreme Court clearly stated that “expanding the Bivens remedy is now a
21
disfavored judicial activity,” and the Court has “consistently refused to extend Bivens to any new
22
context or new category of defendants.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017) (citations
23
omitted). The Court set forth a two-part test to determine whether a Bivens claim may proceed.
24
The district court must first determine whether the claim presents a new context from previously
25
established Bivens remedies. If so, the Court must then apply a “special factors” analysis to
26
determine whether “special factors counsel hesitation” in expanding Bivens absent affirmative
27
action by Congress. Id. at 1857, 1875.
28
///
3
1
“Since Bivens, the Supreme Court has recognized implied causes of action for damages
2
against federal employees for only three types of constitutional violations: (1) police search and
3
seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Bivens, 403 U.S. 388; (2) gender
4
discrimination by a congressman in violation of the Fifth Amendment for an employee not
5
covered by Title VII, see Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1978); and (3) deliberate indifference
6
toward a prisoner in violation of the Eighth Amendment, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14
7
(1980).” Adralan v. McHugh, No. 1:13-CV-01138-LHK, 2013 WL 6212710, at *10 (N.D. Cal.
8
Nov. 27, 2013).
9
In this case, Plaintiff claims that Warden Matevousian retaliated against Plaintiff in
10
violation of his First Amendment rights to file a complaint, and that the other defendants
11
conspired in the retaliation. This First Amendment claim presents a new context in Bivens, and
12
the Court must proceed to consideration of the special factors.
13
If the claim presents a new context in Bivens, the Court must consider whether there are
14
special factors counseling against extension of Bivens into the area.
“[T]he inquiry must
15
concentrate on whether the Judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to
16
consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” Ziglar, 137
17
S. Ct. at 1857-58. The Court should assess the impact on governmental operations system-wise,
18
including the burdens on government employees who are sued personally, as well as the projected
19
costs and consequences to the government itself.
20
alternative remedial structure present in a certain case, that alone may limit the power of the
21
Judiciary to infer a new Bivens cause of action.” Id.
Id. at 1858. In addition, “if there is an
22
The Supreme Court has never implied a Bivens action under any clause of the First
23
Amendment. See Reichie v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 n.4 (2012) (“We have never held that Bivens
24
extends to First Amendment claims.”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675 (assuming without
25
deciding that Bivens extended to First Amendment claim). In addition, the Supreme Court
26
declined to extend Bivens to a First Amendment free speech claim relating to federal employment
27
noting “that Congress is in a better position to decide” the issue. Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367,
28
390 (1983).
4
1
Also, Plaintiff has alternative remedies available to him, including the Bureau of Prisons
2
administrative grievance process, which Plaintiff alleges that he utilized in this case. (See First.
3
Am. Compl at 2.) See Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 550 (2007). see also Correctional
4
Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 69 (2001) (“So long as the plaintiff had an avenue for
5
some redress, bedrock principles of separation of powers foreclosed judicial imposition of a new
6
substantive liability.”) (citation omitted). In addition, the fact that Congress has not extended
7
Bivens to claims under the First Amendment is itself a factor counseling hesitation. Ziglar, 137
8
S. Ct. at 1865.
9
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that under the analysis set forth in Ziglar, there is
10
no implied right of a Bivens action for a First Amendment retaliation claim, and this action
11
should be dismissed.
12
IV.
13
CONCLUSION
14
15
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a Fresno
District Judge to this action.
16
Further, for the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
17
1.
18
Bivens; and
19
20
The instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on February 26, 2018 (ECF
No. 5), be denied, as moot.
21
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
22
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)
23
days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
24
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
25
Findings and Recommendation.”
26
///
27
///
28
///
5
1
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the
2
waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
3
Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 10, 2018
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
6
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?