Crisp v. Barretto et al
Filing
14
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/31/17 ORDERING plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis 4 , 7 which were filed while he was incarcerated are denied as moot. Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 11 is granted. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed and this case be closed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
`
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
OBIE L. CRISP, III,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-0580 JAM DB P
v.
ORDER
J. BARRETTO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner1 proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated various constitutional rights when they
19
denied him a temporary release to attend his mother’s funeral. Before the court are plaintiff’s
20
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff’s complaint for screening. For the reasons set
21
forth below, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and finds plaintiff
22
has failed to state potentially cognizable claims under § 1983. Because the court further finds any
23
amendment would be futile, the court recommends dismissal of this action.
24
////
25
////
26
27
28
1
On June 5, 2017, plaintiff filed a change of address which indicates that he is no longer
incarcerated. (ECF No. 8.) The court then instructed plaintiff to file an updated motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. He has done so. (ECF No. 11.)
1
1
2
3
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(ECF No. 11.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
4
SCREENING
5
I.
Legal Standards
6
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
7
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §
8
1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims
9
that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
10
granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
11
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).
12
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
13
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
14
Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
15
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
16
490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
17
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
18
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain
19
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the
20
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic
21
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
22
However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more
23
than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
24
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550
25
U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the
26
allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.
27
738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all
28
doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
2
1
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
2
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.
3
4
5
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the
6
actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See
7
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362
8
(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the
9
meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or
10
omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which
11
complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
12
Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of
13
their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant
14
holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional
15
violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);
16
Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations
17
concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
18
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
19
II.
20
21
Allegations of the Complaint2
Plaintiff identifies the following defendants: Warden Jennifer Barretto, Captain A.
Ladson, Counselor Jimminez, and Does 1-10. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)
22
Plaintiff contends defendants used his gang membership status as an excuse to deny him
23
the right to a temporary release to attend his mother’s funeral. He provides a copy of the denial
24
which provides the following reasons: plaintiff’s “documented membership status with the Crips
25
2
26
27
28
In June, plaintiff mailed a second complaint to the court. It was filed as an amended complaint
in this case. (ECF No. 10.) In a filing dated July 17, 2017, plaintiff informed the court that he
intended that second complaint to open a new action. (See ECF No. 12.) By separate order, the
court instructs the Clerk of the Court to strike the amended complaint from this action and open a
new case. For these reasons, the above-captioned case proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint
filed here on March 17, 2107. (ECF No. 1.)
3
1
STG [security threat] group poses a significant risk to the safety and security of custody staff in a
2
community setting and his presence in the community may evoke adverse reactions due to his sex
3
offender status.” The document is signed by defendants Ladson and Jimenez. (ECF No. 1 at 17-
4
18.)
5
Plaintiff argues these reasons violated established guidelines for permitting funeral releases.
6
He also contends he was discriminated against based on his “juvenile record” and was subjected
7
to oppression, harassment, and negligent conduct. As a result, plaintiff states that he suffered
8
mental anguish, exacerbated by his history of depression and suicide attempts.
9
III.
Does Plaintiff State a Cognizable Claim?
10
Plaintiff's allegations do not amount to claims cognizable under § 1983 for a number of
11
reasons. First, plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to attend a family member’s
12
funeral. See Thomas v. Farley, 31 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1994) (Federal law does not entitle a
13
prisoner to compassionate leave.); Kinder v. Merced County, No. 1:10-cv-1789 LJO GSA, 2010
14
WL 4483818, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010) (no constitutionally protected liberty interest in
15
attending funerals); Tribesman v. Cal. Corr. Peace Officers Assoc., No. EDCV 09-1244-GHK
16
MLG, 2009 WL 2596622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2009) (“Plaintiff’s request for money
17
damages due to the failure to allow him to attend the funeral of his grandmother has no statutory
18
or constitutional basis.”). The denial of leave to attend a funeral does not amount to a “denial of
19
the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
20
McCowen v. Clark, No. 1:09-cv-0664-LJO-SMS-YNP (PC), 2009 WL 2460883, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
21
Aug. 10, 2009); and does not violate a prisoner’s due process rights because denying leave to
22
attend a funeral does not impose an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate,” id.
23
Second, plaintiff’s claim that he was discriminated against based on his “juvenile record” is
24
apparently an argument that he was discriminated against based on his status as a sex offender.
25
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that neither sex offenders nor juvenile sex
26
offenders are a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause. See United States v. Juvenile
27
Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1030-
28
31 (9th Cir. 2001)). Further, to the extent plaintiff is claiming discrimination based on the fact he
4
1
was a juvenile at the time of that crime, “age is not a suspect classification” either. Gregory v.
2
Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470 (1991). Therefore, plaintiff does not state an equal protection claim
3
for discrimination. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to
4
demonstrate membership in a protected class means plaintiff has not stated an equal protection
5
clause claim).
6
Third, to the extent plaintiff is alleging his federal constitutional rights were violated due to
7
harassment or oppression, neither threats nor harassment state a claim under § 1983. See
8
Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981), aff'd sub nom., Kush v.
9
Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983).
10
Finally, because plaintiff does not state any cognizable federal claims under § 1983, the court
11
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
12
1367.
13
Leave to amend is not required here as the deficiencies in the pleadings could not be cured by
14
the allegation of other facts. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003); Lopez v.
15
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.
16
1995). Accordingly, the court will recommend dismissal of this action.
17
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
18
1. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 4, 7) which were filed
19
while he was incarcerated are denied as moot.
20
2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) is granted.
21
And, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed and this
22
case be closed.
23
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
24
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
25
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
26
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
27
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
28
////
5
1
time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
2
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: July 31, 2017
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/cris580.scrn2
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?