Patkins v. Gonzales et al

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/14/11 RECOMMENDING that 8 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS be denied; and this action be dismissed without prejudice; 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DAVID C. PATKINS,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-3440 KJM DAD P

vs.

13

C/O R. GONZALES et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

18

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule

19

302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20
21

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

22

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

24

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

25

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

26

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).
1

1

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

2

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

3

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

4

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

5

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

6

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

7

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

8

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

9

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

10

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

11

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

12

(1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must

13

contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain

14

factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic,

15

550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

16

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.

17

738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all

18

doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

19

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

20

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 in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

21
22
23

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

24

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

25

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

26

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the
2

1

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

2

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

3

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

4

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

5

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

6

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

7

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

8

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory

9

allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not

10
11
12

sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
In the present case, plaintiff has named Warden Martel, Lieutenant Buckner,

13

Lieutenant Barroga, and Officer Gonzales as the defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants

14

have forced him to suffer repeated disciplinary actions under the same rules violation report

15

(“RVR”). Specifically, plaintiff alleges as follows. Defendant Gonzales issued to plaintiff RVR

16

Log. No. MCSP-C-05-10-036 for “disobeying orders” in retaliation for plaintiff filing a prison

17

administrative grievance. Defendant Barroga then reclassified the RVR to “disrespect with

18

potential for violence.” Ultimately, plaintiff was found guilty of the charge and was required to

19

forfeit sixty days of good-time credits as a result of the disciplinary conviction. Plaintiff claims

20

that the defendants have violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the

21

forfeiture of time credits imposed upon him amounts to an atypical and significant hardship. In

22

terms of relief, plaintiff requests monetary damages, dismissal of the RVR, and restoration of his

23

lost credits. (Compl. Attach. 1-5 & Exs.)

24
25
26

DISCUSSION
A civil rights action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge
the conditions of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). In contrast,
3

1

habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact

2

or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Here, plaintiff

3

claims that the defendants’ conduct resulted in his loss of good-time credits. However, plaintiff

4

has not alleged or even suggested that the disciplinary conviction in question has been overturned

5

or otherwise invalidated.

6

Under these circumstances, the court cannot allow plaintiff to proceed in this civil

7

rights action. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“a state prisoner’s § 1983

8

action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable

9

relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal

10

prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of

11

confinement or its duration.”) (emphasis in original); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (a

12

state prisoner may not recover damages under § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional

13

imprisonment, or for any other harm caused by “actions whose unlawfulness would render the

14

imprisonment invalid,” unless he can prove that the conviction or other basis for confinement has

15

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

16

authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a

17

writ of habeas corpus); see also Williams v. Grannis, No. CIV S-09-1245 FCD GGH, 2010 WL

18

5169073 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010) (“any determination that false evidence was

19

manufactured against plaintiff, or that this RVR was not actually based on the cited evidence but

20

retaliatory in nature, would necessarily require the disciplinary conviction to be found invalid.”);

21

Struggs v. Evans, No. C 08-3909 MMC (PR), 2010 WL 5059527 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010)

22

(claims that the defendants denied plaintiff due process by filing untruthful reports, relying on

23

untruthful reports, and disallowing plaintiff to call witnesses and present video evidence, if

24

established, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary proceedings and forfeiture

25

of credits). A writ of habeas corpus is plaintiff’s sole remedy by which to attack in federal court

26

/////
4

1

his disciplinary conviction and sentence and that remedy may be pursued only after he has

2

properly exhausted all of his constitutional claims in state court.

3
4

CONCLUSION

5

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 8) be denied; and

7

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

9

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

10

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

11

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

12

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

13

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

14

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

15

DATED: July 14, 2011.

16
17
18
19

DAD:9
patk3440.56

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5