Stine v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 20

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/21/2018 DIRECTING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM-285 Forms; and RECOMMENDING that defendant Revell be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Service is appropriate for Inch and Mitchell. Clerk to send plaintiff: 1 Summons, 2 USM-285 Forms with instruction sheet, and 1 copy of the Amended Complaint filed on 6/18 /2018. Plaintiff to complete and submit the Notice of Submission of Documents with service documents within 30 days from the date of this order. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKEAL GLENN STINE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:18-cv-0684 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under

18

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),

19

and is proceeding in forma pauperis. By order filed June 7, 2018, plaintiff’s amended complaint

20

was dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a second

21

amended complaint.
Plaintiff alleges his due process rights were violated when defendants wrongfully

22
23

validated him as a gang member because he “pissed off the regional director and director” by

24

filing lawsuits. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) He alleges that John Doe, an unknown individual with the

25

SIU/Sacramento office, wrongfully validated plaintiff as an Aryan Brotherhood gang member

26

without notice or a hearing in violation of plaintiff’s due process rights, and defendants Mitchell

27

and Inch reviewed and approved the validation. Plaintiff’s allegations state potentially cognizable

28

////
1

1

due process claims as to defendants John Doe, Mitchell, and Inch based on their alleged

2

involvement in the validation process.

3

Of course, unknown persons cannot be served with process until they are identified by

4

their real names and the court will not investigate the names and identities of unnamed

5

defendants. Once plaintiff learn the identity of the “John Doe” he wishes to serve, he must

6

promptly move to substitute and name the correct defendant, or move pursuant to Rule 15 to file

7

an amended pleading to add the proper defendant. See Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d

8

1192, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of Doe defendants where Brass did not even

9

attempt to request leave to add new parties or amend the complaint).

10

Further, plaintiff alleges that defendant Revell agreed with the decision to validate

11

plaintiff, but alleges no facts connecting defendant Revell with the validation process, by

12

initiating, reviewing, or approving it. Liability under Bivens requires a showing of personal

13

involvement. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (in a Bivens action, “each

14

Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own

15

misconduct”). Simply agreeing with a validation decision is insufficient to demonstrate a

16

constitutional violation. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to amend his pleading to state

17

sufficient factual allegations as to defendants, and in the last order, the court provided detailed

18

information as to the governing standards. Thus, the undersigned recommends that defendant

19

Revell be dismissed from this action without leave to amend, but without prejudice.

20

The second amended complaint states potentially cognizable due process claims for relief

21

against defendants Mitchell and Inch pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If

22

the allegations of the second amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable possibility

23

of prevailing on the merits of this action.

24

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Mitchell and Inch.

26

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, an

27

instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed June 18, 2018.

28

////
2

1

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached

2

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

3

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

4

b. One completed summons;

5

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above;

6

and

7

d. Three copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed June 18, 2018.

8

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service.

9

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to

10

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment

11

of costs.

12

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.

13

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant Revell be dismissed from this action

14

without prejudice.

15

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16

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

17

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

18

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

19

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

20

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

21

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

22

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

23

Dated: June 21, 2018

24
25
/cw/stin0684.1.amd

26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKEAL GLENN STINE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-0684 KJN P
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order
filed _____________________ :

19

____

completed summons form

20

____

completed USM-285 forms

21

____

copies of the ___________________
Amended Complaint

22
23

DATED:

24
25
26

________________________________
Plaintiff

27
28
1