Smith v. Grounds et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/23/12 ORDERING that plaintiffs amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim and the Clerk is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

BRIAN A. SMITH,
Plaintiff,

10
vs.

11
12

No. 2:11-cv-1410 EFB P

RANDY GROUNDS, et al.,
Defendants.

13

ORDER
/

14

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

15
16

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local

18

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). After a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, plaintiff has filed an

19

amended complaint.

20

I.

Screening Requirement and Standards

21

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

22

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion

24

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

25

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

26

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
1

1

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than

2

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

3

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,

4

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

5

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

6

Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility.

7

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

8

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

9

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a

10

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.

11

Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to

12

the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

13

A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal

14

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain

15

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant

16

fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

17

550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).

18

II.

19

Background
On February 28, 2012, the court reviewed plaintiff’s third amended complaint, which

20

superceded the earlier filed complaints, and found it did not state a cognizable claim for purposes

21

of § 1915A screening. Dckt. No. 15.

22

Plaintiff named the following defendants: Randy Grounds, Warden; Haviland, Warden;

23

Peck; Wamble; and Knudson. He alleged that he was found guilty of a rules violation based on

24

his alleged participation in a work strike, but that through the administrative appeals process, the

25

rule violation was dismissed because of evidence that the reason for plaintiff’s failure to report to

26

work was that he was sick. He claimed he was awarded money through the administrative
2

1

appeal process, but has not yet received any money. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Peck

2

said he could not guarantee plaintiff’s safety at work, and to punish plaintiff for refusing to put

3

himself in danger, issued the rules violation, which took away plaintiff’s rights and privileges,

4

and violated disciplinary procedures. Plaintiff also claimed that defendant Haviland sanctioned

5

the “inhumanity” that forced the workers to strike, that defendant Knudson told inmate work

6

supervisors to order inmates to go to work despite the danger that it posed to their lives, and that

7

defendant Wamble gave false statements to reporters that inmates were not being penalized for

8

their actions regarding the strike.

9

The court found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege how either Warden

10

Grounds or Warden Haviland personally participated in violating plaintiff’s rights, and that

11

plaintiff appeared to have improperly named them as defendants solely because of their alleged

12

supervisory roles. The court also found that the complaint did not contain sufficient factual

13

allegations to state a claim that any aspect of or proceeding relating to the rule violation report

14

resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s due process rights and that plaintiff’s allegation of an

15

unauthorized deprivation of money owed to him also failed to state a cognizable due process

16

claim. Additionally, the court found that the complaint did not include sufficient factual

17

allegations to plausibly allege that Knudson, Peck, or any other defendant, was deliberately

18

indifferent to plaintiff’s safety. As to defendant Wamble, the court informed plaintiff that it was

19

unclear what federal right, if any, plaintiff claimed that Wamble had violated. The court gave

20

plaintiff notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and leave to amend.

21

III.

22
23

Fourth Amended Complaint
Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on April 2, 2012.1 Dckt. No. 18. The

allegations are nearly identical to those in the third amended complaint and plaintiff’s addition of

24
25
26

1

Plaintiff improperly attempted to supplement that complaint in a piecemeal fashion on
April 6, 2012 and May 7, 2012. See Dckt. Nos. 21, 22; E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
Those filings are disregarded.
3

1

new and conclusory allegations regarding defendants’ “personal involvement,” do not cure the

2

deficiencies identified in the court’s screening order. See Dckt. No. 18 at 3-4. The complaint

3

still fails to allege how either Warden Grounds or Warden Haviland personally participated in

4

violating plaintiff’s rights, and plaintiff appear to have named them as defendants solely because

5

of their alleged supervisory roles. Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the

6

official is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

7

129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). Because respondeat superior liability is inapplicable to § 1983

8

suits, “a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own

9

individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to allege

10

facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,

11

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Additionally, plaintiff still fails to allege what federal right, if

12

any, that Wamble violated.

13

The complaint now includes allegations that plaintiff was denied certain procedural

14

protections such as advance written notice, but still fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate

15

the deprivation of a liberty interest in violation of plaintiff’s due process rights. To state a claim

16

for violation of the right to procedural due process, plaintiff must allege facts showing: “(1) a

17

deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of

18

adequate procedural protections.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003).

19

Plaintiff does not have a property or liberty interest in a prison job that is protected by the Due

20

Process Clause. Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, “the

21

Constitution itself does not give rise to a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to more adverse

22

conditions of confinement.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). But state

23

regulations may create a liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement if those

24

conditions “present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of [the inmate’s] sentence.”

25

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995). Under Sandin, a liberty interest may exist where

26

placement in administrative segregation “imposes atypical and significant hardship in the inmate
4

1
2

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484.
Additionally, the complaint still does not include sufficient factual allegations to

3

plausibly allege that Knudson, Peck, or any other defendant, was deliberately indifferent to

4

plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A prison official violates the Eighth

5

Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishment where he or she deprives a prisoner

6

of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.”

7

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To succeed on such an Eighth Amendment

8

claim, a prisoner must show that (1) the defendant prison official’s conduct deprived him or her

9

of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities and (2) that the defendant acted with

10
11

deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s health or safety. Id. at 834.
For these reasons, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim despite notice of the

12

complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend. Plaintiff appears to be unable to state a

13

cognizable claim for relief. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011)

14

(“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear

15

that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (internal quotation

16

marks omitted)); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case

17

law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be

18

saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”)

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed

20

for failure to state a claim and the Clerk is directed to close this case.

21

Dated: October 23, 2012.

22
23
24
25
26
5