Arias-Maldonado v. Sisto et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge J. Michael Seabright on 11/2/2009 ORDERING the court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part 20 Findings and Recommendations; Plaintiff's SAC against CDCR is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Service is thereby approp riate for Defendants Brunsfield, Arthur, and Kesterson. The court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send Pltf a copy of this Order, one USM-285 form, one summons, an instruction sheet, and one copy of the SAC filed 17 on 8/4/2008. By 12/1/2009, Pltf shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the Court. (cc: Order, Notice, 1 summons, inst sheet, cmp, 1 ea USM-285)(Reader, L)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J A M IE ARIAS-MALDONADO, #T-12528, P la intiff, vs . D .K . SISTO, et al., Defendants. _______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C iv. No. 2:08-00216 JMS-BMK O R D E R (1) ADOPTING IN PART A N D REJECTING IN PART M A G IS T R A T E JUDGE `S S E P T E M B E R 23, 2009 FINDING AND R E C O M M E N D A T IO N THAT P LA IN T IFF' S SECOND AMENDED C O M P LA IN T BE DISMISSED; AND (2 ) DIRECTING SERVICE OF S E C O N D AMENDED COMPLAINT

O R D E R (1) ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE'S SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 FINDING AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N THAT PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED C O M P L A I N T BE DISMISSED; AND (2) DIRECTING SERVICE OF S E C O N D AMENDED COMPLAINT O n August 4, 2008, Plaintiff Jamie Arias-Maldonado ("Plaintiff"), a s ta te prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Second Amended C o mp la int ("SAC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging claims against the C a lifo rnia Department of Corrections ("CDCR"), D.K. Sisto, N. Grannis, V.D. B rums fie ld , Cpt. Arthur, K. Kesterson, M.D. Corioso, S. Cervantes, and J. Boyden. Doc. No. 17. On September 23, 2009, Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren filed his Find ing and Recommendation that the SAC be dismissed ("September 23 F&R"). On October 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed Objections. Based on the following, the court

A D O P T S in part and REJECTS in part the September 23 F&R and DIRECTS S E R V IC E . I. BACKGROUND T he SAC alleges claims based on the following allegations. First, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Brunsfield, Arthur, and K e s te rs o n were part of a "Classification Committee" that decided to transfer P la intiff from California State Prison ("CSP") in Solano to Tallahatchie County C o rre c tio na l Facility ("TCCF") in South Tutwiler, Mississippi. SAC at 2-6. The S A C appears to allege that said transfer was made on the basis of his race. Id. at 56. Second, Plaintiff alleges claims based on lack of access to the courts. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that on August 22, 2007, a law library staff member, O ffic e r Boyden, stopped Plaintiff as he was entering the law library to verify why he w a s not at his assigned job. Id. Ex. A at 1. Plaintiff showed Boyden a written pass he had received from the building officer to go to the law library and Boyden p e rmitte d Plaintiff to enter. Id. Plaintiff claims that this incident is "direct e vid e nc e " of CSP's and Boyden's efforts to deny Plaintiff a right of access to the c o urts . Id. at 3. Plaintiff further asserts that prison officials repeatedly do not time ly open the law library. Id. at 3-4. According to the SAC, these denials
2

imp e d e d his ability to litigate his civil actions, resulting in their dismissal. Id. T hird , the SAC asserts that Defendants did not properly process his grievances concerning his transfer out of California and the incident with Boyden. Id. at 3-5. The SAC claims that various named prison officials failed to adequately a d d re s s his emergency appeals relating to his transfer, and the warden failed to inve s tiga te the law library staff regarding the incident with Officer Boyden. Id. at 35. I I . STANDARD OF REVIEW W he n a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings or re c o mme nd a tio ns , the district court must review de novo those portions to which the o b je c tio ns are made and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the find ings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); United S ta te s v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("[T]he d is tric t judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de no vo if objection is made, but not otherwise."). Under a de novo standard, this court reviews "the matter anew, the s a me as if it had not been heard before, and as if no decision previously had been re nd e re d ." Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006); United
3

S ta te s v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). The district court need not ho ld a de novo hearing; however, it is the court's obligation to arrive at its own ind e p e nd e nt conclusion about those portions of the magistrate judge's findings or re c o mme nd a tio n to which a party objects. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 6 1 6 (9th Cir. 1989). III. DISCUSSION P la intiff' s Objection outlines his allegations in the SAC, asserts a d d itio na l allegations, and then summarily asserts that Defendants "are answerable fo r all the aforesaid injuries Plaintiff suffered." Pl.'s Obj. 6. Given that Plaintiff o b je c ts to the September 23 F&R in its entirety, the court reviews and addresses e a c h of Plaintiff's claims in turn. Regarding the SAC's claim that Defendants Brunsfield, Arthur, and K e s te rs o n transferred Plaintiff to TCCF due to his race, the September 23 F&R re c o mme nd s that the court dismiss this claim on the basis that it is moot because P la intiff has since been transferred to California Men's Colony ("CMC") in San Luis Obispo, California. The court agrees with the September 23 F&R's re c o mme nd a tio n that this claim is moot to the extent the SAC seeks injunctive relief tha t Plaintiff be placed "at the San Louis Obispo Prison." SAC at Prayer ¶ 1. The S A C also requests, however, that Plaintiff be granted "damages treble pursuant to
4

C a lifo rnia existing law." Id. ¶ 2. Because the SAC seeks compensatory damages, the court rejects the September 23 F&R's recommendation to dismiss this claim in its entirety and finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim against Defendants Brunsfield, A rthur, and Kesterson for his alleged involuntary transfer based on race. As to Plaintiff's remaining claims, the court agrees with the September 2 3 F&R's recommendation that they should be dismissed without leave to amend.

First, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the CDCR because it is e ntitle d to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 554 F.3 d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of CDCR on Eleventh A me nd me nt grounds). The Ninth Circuit has explained: In the absence of a waiver by the state or a valid congressional o ve rrid e , under the eleventh amendment, agencies of the state a re immune from private damage actions or suits for injunctive re lie f brought in federal court. The State of California has not w a ive d its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims b ro ught under § 1983 in federal court, and the Supreme Court ha s held that § 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State's E le ve nth Amendment immunity. D ittm a n v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations, alteration, a nd internal quotation marks omitted). The court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff's S A C as to the CDCR without leave to amend.

5

R e ga rd ing Plaintiff's claim for the abbreviated library hours and B o yd o n' s questioning of Plaintiff, the court recognizes that inmates have "`a fund a me nta l constitutional right of access to the courts [which] requires prison a utho ritie s to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers b y providing prisoners with adequate law libraries[.]'" Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 3 4 3 , 346 (1996) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)); see also C o r n e tt v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 1995). Inmates, however, do not ha ve "an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance." Lewis, at 3 5 1 ; see also Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that " the re is no established minimum requirement [of library time] for satisfying the a c c e s s requirement" in Bounds). Accordingly, to state a claim based on denial of a c c e s s to the courts, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that he suffered an a c tua l injury by being shut out of court. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 4 1 2 -1 5 (2002); see also id. Plaintiff cannot state a claim for lack of access based me re ly on the allegations that the library opened late on some days and Boyden q ue s tio ne d him because these allegations do not establish any injury based on lack o f access. The court therefore DISMISSES this claim without leave to amend. Regarding Plaintiff's claims for the alleged mishandling of his grie va nc e s , they are not cognizable in a § 1983 action because there is no
6

c o ns titutio na l right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system for C a lifo rnia inmates. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating tha t inmates have "no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure"); see a ls o Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding no liberty inte re s t in processing of appeals because there is no entitlement to a specific grie va nc e procedure); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) ("`[A p ris o n] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any s ub s ta ntive right upon the inmates.'"). Accordingly, the court DISMISSES without le a ve to amend Plaintiff's claims based on Defendants' alleged mishandling and/or fa ilure to respond to Plaintiff's grievances. Finally, the court recognizes that Plaintiff included in his Objection ma ny additional allegations that were not in the SAC -- such as details on the c o nd itio ns at TCCF and events that occurred after he was transferred to CMC. These allegations are beyond what was included in the SAC and are not properly b e fo re the court. IV. CONCLUSION B a s e d on the above, the court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the September 23 F&R. The court dismisses the SAC IN PART for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court further ORDERS as follows:
7

1.

P la intiff has failed to state a claim against CDCR. Plaintiff's SAC against C D C R is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

2.

P la intiff has stated a claim against Defendants Brunsfield, Arthur, and K e s te rs o n based on Plaintiff's allegation that they transferred Plaintiff to T C C F on the basis of his race, and this claim shall proceed. Service is the re b y appropriate for Defendants Brunsfield, Arthur, and Kesterson.

3.

T h e court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of this Order, o ne USM-285 form, one summons, an instruction sheet, and one copy of the S A C filed on August 4, 2008.

4.

B y December 1, 2009, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of S ub mis s io n of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: a. b. c. T he completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents; O ne completed summons; O ne completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed in number 2 a b o ve ; and d. Three copies of the endorsed SAC filed August 4, 2008.

5.

P la intiff need not attempt service on Defendants Brunsfield, Arthur, and K e s te rs o n and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of all the d o c ume nts listed in number 4, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to
8

fo rw a rd the completed forms to the United States Marshal to serve on the a b o ve -na me d Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 w itho ut payment of costs. 6. P la intiff' s failure to comply with this Order may result in automatic dismissal o f this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 2, 2009.

/s/ J. Michael Seabright J. Michael Seabright U nite d States District Judge

Arias-Maldonado v. Sisto, et al., Civ. No. 2:08-00216 JMS-BMK; Order (1) Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part Magistrate Judge's September 23, 2009 Finding and Recommendation That Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Be Dismissed; and (2) Directing Service of Second Amended Complaint

9