Cervantes v. The Whole Department of Corrections et al
Filing
15
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal, with Prejudice, for the Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Failure to State a Cognizable Claim 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/6/18. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
RUBEN TONY CERVANTES,
v.
THE WHOLE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00397-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
8 AND THE FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM
(ECF No. 14)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
14
15
I.
16
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Ruben Tony Cervantes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
18
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on March 23, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On June
20
15, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e). (ECF No.
21
11.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
22
8 and failed to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff was given leave to amend to cure the identified
23
deficiencies in his complaint. To assist Plaintiff, the Court also provided the pleading and legal
24
standards that appeared relevant to his claims.
Plaintiff sought an extension of time to amend his complaint, (ECF No. 12), which was
25
26
granted, (ECF No. 13.) On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.)
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is now before the Court for screening.
27
28
///
1
1
II.
2
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
3
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
4
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
5
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
6
“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]
7
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
8
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
9
entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
10
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
11
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
12
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally
13
participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
14
2002).
15
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally
16
construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121
17
(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible,
18
which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named
19
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
20
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not
21
sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying
22
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
23
III.
24
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
25
Plaintiff names as defendants R. Manroy, a CCI counselor at Salinas Valley State Prison, and
26
the “whole Department of Corrections.”
27
defendants may be missing. The caption indicates that Plaintiff may have also intended to name R.
28
Dossey, M. Diaz, W. L. Muniz, Bermudez, and John and Jane Doe unknown agents. (Id. at 1.)
(Am. Compl. 2.)
2
It appears a page listing additional
1
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is a 15-page critical statement against numerous people and
2
agencies, raising numerous issues. He generally asserts that various friends and family members, and
3
various people in Kern County, are experiencing a violation of their rights due to conduct by police
4
departments and correctional officers. Some of these issues involve surveillance, including video and
5
audio prison surveillance, the internet, law firms, the falsification of documents and fraud, promotion
6
of drug use, aiding gang members, and other matters that are not entirely clear.
7
Plaintiff states that he names the “whole Department of Corrections” as a defendant because all
8
officers are in a gang. (Id. at 5.) Also, he states that correctional officers change depending on where
9
he is, such that he cannot identify any specific officer at fault for his complaints, although he generally
10
alleges that a warden is at fault in all circumstances because a warden oversees officers and prisons.
11
Plaintiff also alleges that there are ongoing issues of harassment, improper surveillance, and other
12
violations of rights at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he is currently held. Plaintiff also complains
13
of improper things being on the radio, television, and computers, and what seems to be general
14
societal harms. Plaintiff alleges that there are general problems with law enforcement, prosecution,
15
and incarceration.
16
Regarding himself specifically, Plaintiff complains of an issue regarding transfers and housing,
17
and states that correctional staff is unprofessional. Plaintiff also states that he has problems with his
18
mail, and problems with attempting to exhaust his administrative remedies. No specific events, dates,
19
or people are identified, and his allegations are conclusory.
20
21
Plaintiff asserts violations of the First, Sixth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments and the
Uniform Commercial Code, and seeks damages and injunctive relief.
22
IV.
23
DISCUSSION
24
A.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
25
Plaintiff has been previously advised that a complaint must contain “a short and plain
26
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
27
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
28
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
3
1
678 (2009)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff
2
must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights.
3
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). While “plaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of
4
pleading facts . . .,” Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se
5
prisoners are still construed liberally and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
6
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
7
“Where the factual elements of a cause of action are present, but are scattered throughout the
8
complaint and are not organized into a short, plain statement of the claim, dismissal for failure to
9
satisfy Rule 8 is proper.” See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining
10
complaint should set forth who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail
11
to provide notice to defendants). The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating
12
to Plaintiff’s claims. Id.
13
Here, Plaintiff’s original complaint named various officers and a warden, and was found to be
14
a vague, confusing, rambling, and conclusory account of various accusations. Plaintiff’s amended
15
complaint suffers from the same issues. There are little to no factual allegations, dates, names, or
16
specific events discussed, and Plaintiff’s assertions are largely conclusory accusations aimed at the
17
entire department of corrections, prison officials, and law enforcement generally. Plaintiff’s complaint
18
lacks sufficient factual allegations to state any claim for relief.
19
Plaintiff was previously advised of these deficiencies, provided legal standards and granted
20
leave to amend to attempt to state this claim in the Court’s June 15, 2018 screening order, but he failed
21
to cure the deficiencies. Therefore, further leave to amend is not warranted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203
22
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279
23
F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing “[f]utility of amendment” as a proper basis for dismissal
24
without leave to amend).
25
B.
26
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
27
Every person who, under color of [state law]...subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution...shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit
28
Linkage Requirement
4
1
in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
2
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the
3
actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v.
4
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit
5
has held that “[a] person ‘subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the
6
meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or
7
omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which
8
complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
9
Plaintiff fails to link any specific defendant to any deprivation of his rights. He has identified a
10
few persons, but does not describe what they did or did not do to violate his rights. Moreover, he has
11
stated that all law enforcement and correctional officers are at fault, and that he cannot identify
12
specific defendants against whom he brings a claim. Therefore, he has failed to state any claim against
13
any defendant.
14
C.
Supervisory Liability
15
Plaintiff states that Warden Muniz is a defendant. As Plaintiff has been previously advised, he
16
cannot bring suit against any official based on their supervisory role. Liability may not be imposed on
17
supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat
18
superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020–21 (9th
19
Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir.2009); Jones v. Williams, 297
20
F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
21
Supervisors may be held liable only if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew
22
of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
23
1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d
24
554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009). Supervisory liability may also exist without any personal participation if the
25
official implemented “a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of the constitutional
26
rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942
27
F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations and quotations marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds
28
by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1970).
5
1
D.
Housing
2
Plaintiff vaguely alleges that he is having issues regarding housing and housing transfers, and
3
that prison officials have been unprofessional in dealing with his requests regarding housing. Plaintiff
4
cannot state a claim based on dissatisfaction with his housing location or lack of choice in his facility.
5
Prisoners have no right to remain in the prison of their choice or to prevent a housing transfer. Olim v.
6
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983).
7
E.
8
Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d
9
Mail
264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
Nevertheless, correctional institutions and jails have a
10
legitimate government interest in imposing certain restraints on inmate or detainee correspondence to
11
maintain order and security. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974), overturned on
12
other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413–14 (1989). For example, inmates and
13
detainees may have their mail screened to ensure that there is no contraband inside. Mangiaracina v.
14
Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017).
15
When incoming mail is legal mail, there are heightened concerns with allowing prison officials
16
unfettered discretion in opening and reading an inmate’s mail. Prisoners have a Sixth Amendment
17
right to confer privately with counsel and the practice of opening legal mail in the prisoner’s presence
18
is specifically designed to protect that right. Id. at 1196–97 (Sixth Amendment requires a pretrial
19
detainee be present when legal mail related to a criminal matter is inspected; even a single incident of
20
improper reading of a pretrial detainee’s mail may give rise to a constitutional violation); Hayes v.
21
Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir. 2017) (prisoners have a First Amendment right to have
22
their properly marked legal mail, including civil mail, opened in their presence).
23
defendant’s ability to communicate candidly and confidentially with his lawyer is essential to his
24
defense.” Id. at 1198 (quoting Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2014)).
“A criminal
25
“Mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.”
26
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996). “All correspondence from a court to a litigant is a
27
public document, which prison personnel could if they want inspect in the court’s files.” Id. at 1094
28
(citing to Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir. 1987)).
6
1
2
Despite being previously provided these standards, Plaintiff only generally asserts that he has
issues with his mail. He has not stated any claim based on the standards set forth here.
3
F.
Grievances/Appeals
4
Plaintiff complains that he is having problems exhausting his administrative remedies, and that
5
his complaints have been lost. Prisoners do not have an independent constitutional due process
6
entitlement to a specific administrative grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860
7
(9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that there is no protected
8
liberty interest to a grievance procedure). Prison officials are not required under federal law to process
9
inmate grievances in any specific way. Allegations that prison officials denied or refused to process
10
grievances do not state a cognizable claim for a violation of his due process rights, because there is no
11
right to a particular grievance process or response. See, e.g., Towner v. Knowles, No. CIV S-08-2823
12
LKK EFB P, 2009 WL 4281999, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009) (plaintiff failed to state claims that
13
would indicate a deprivation of his federal rights after defendant allegedly screened out his inmate
14
appeals without any basis); Williams v. Cate, No. 1:09-cv-00468-OWW-YNP PC, 2009 WL 3789597,
15
at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (“Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in the vindication of his
16
administrative claims.”).
17
G.
Venue
18
Plaintiff alleges that he is having his constitutional rights violated while being housed at
19
Salinas Valley State Prison. Salinas Valley State Prison is located in Soledad, California, which is in
20
the County of Monterey.
21
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity
22
jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants
23
reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
24
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is
25
situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which
26
the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
27
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring any claim against a prison official at Salinas Valley State
28
Prison, venue is not proper in this district because the defendant(s) and any witness(es) would reside
7
1
near Salinas Valley State Prison, and all events would have occurred in that prison. That area falls
2
within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
3
therefore any action should be filed in that court, not this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. §
4
82.
5
V.
6
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim upon which relief may be
7
8
granted, and further leave to amend is not warranted.
9
RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim upon
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
which relief could be granted, and for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
11
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty (30) days
13
after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with
14
the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.”
15
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
16
rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
17
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated:
21
November 6, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?