Singanonh v. Susanville Prison

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 4/22/2019 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's claims related to Susanville State Prison be dismissed and Susanville be terminated as defendant in this case. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIENGKHAM SINGANONH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-CV-0159-WBS-DMC-P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUSANVILLE PRISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff

19

claims Defendants violated his First Amendment right to access courts when they denied him the

20

ability to make copies of non-legal documents allegedly needed for his appeal.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD

2

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

3

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

4

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

5

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

6

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require complaints contain a “…short and

7
8

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See McHenry v.

9

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)). Detailed factual

10

allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

11

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

12

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s

13

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v.

14

Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation

15

omitted).

16

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their

17

pleadings liberally construed and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

18

338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be

19

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer

20

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation

21

marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The

22

sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with

23

liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks

24

omitted); Moss, 572F.3d at 969.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

1
2

Plaintiff names four Defendants: (1) Susanville Prison, (2) K. Langslet, (3) S.

3

Cagle, and (4) Smith. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to

4

access Courts by depriving him the ability to make copies of non-legal documents Plaintiff

5

alleges are needed to proceed with his appeal.

6
7

III. ANALYSIS

8

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought

9

against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v.

10

Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition

11

extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t

12

of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

13

Cir. 1989). A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a state

14

agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782

15

(1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc).

16

The Eleventh Amendment also bars actions seeking damages from state officials

17

acting in their official capacities. See Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9th Cir. 1995); Pena

18

v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The Eleventh Amendment does not,

19

however, bar suits against state officials acting in their personal capacities. See id. Under the

20

doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for

21

prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities. See

22

Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997). The Eleventh Amendment also does

23

not bar suits against cities and counties. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690

24

n.54 (1978).

25

Here, Plaintiff’s claim against Susanville Prison is a claim against a state prison.

26

Because state prisons enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity this claim cannot proceed against

27

Susanville Prison. Allison v. Cal. Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir.1969) (applying

28

Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against state prisons). Amending the complaint would not
3

1

change the immunity provided to this Defendant and thus amendment would be futile. Thus, this

2

Court recommends Plaintiff’s claim’s against Susanville State Prison be dismissed and Susanville

3

State Prison be terminated as a defendant in this case because it does not appear possible that the

4

deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

5

F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

6
7

Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining named defendants are addressed by
separate order issued herewith.

8
9
10
11

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s claims related to
Susanville State Prison be dismissed and Susanville be terminated as a defendant in this case.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

13

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

16

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

17

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19

Dated: April 22, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4