(PC) White v. Decker et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/7/2025 ORDERING that 17 Third Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint states a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Decker related to plaintiff's conditions of confinement; no other claims are stated. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the attached Notice of Election form along with any optional amended complaint. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILSON LEBRANDON WHITE,

12

2:24-cv-1685-TLN-CKD P

Plaintiff,
ORDER

13

v.

14

DECKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Wilson LeBrandon White proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. This matter is

17
18

referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s third

19

amended complaint (ECF No. 17) is before the court for screening. Plaintiff states a claim under

20

the Fourteenth Amendment against defendant Decker related to plaintiff’s conditions of

21

confinement in an unsanitary cell at the Shasta County Jail for 48 hours. No other claims are

22

stated. Plaintiff may proceed on this claim against defendant Decker or take a final opportunity to

23

amend under the guidelines set forth below.

24

I.

Screening Requirement

25

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

26

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a

27

claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

28

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27
1

1

(2000). 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). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is

3

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly

4

baseless. Id. at 327.

5

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement

6

of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

7

544, 555 (2007). In order to state a cognizable claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked

8

assertions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

9

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. The facts alleged

10

must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”

11

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a

12

complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of the complaint and

13

construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id.; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

14

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

15
16

II.

Allegations in the Third Amended Complaint
In the first cause of action, plaintiff alleges that conditions of confinement at the Shasta

17

County Jail violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. (ECF No. 17 at 3.) Defendant

18

Decker removed plaintiff from a holding cell and placed plaintiff an overcrowded cell with urine

19

and feces from a clogged toilet because plaintiff kept asking for a phone call. (Id.) Plaintiff had to

20

put his blanket on the wet floor and lie on the soaked blanket covered in urine and feces over a

21

period of 48 hours. (Id.) Plaintiff pleaded with Decker about the toilet and floor; Decker laughed

22

and told plaintiff to deal with it. (Id.) Plaintiff suffered skin irritations and severe rash for several

23

weeks. (Id.)

24

In the second cause of action, plaintiff alleges defendant Dunham violates plaintiff’s First

25

Amendment right to litigate with the court by opening and reading plaintiff’s legal mail from the

26

courts. (ECF No. 17 at 4.) When plaintiff told Dunham that he could not read plaintiff’s legal

27

mail or even open it until Decker was in front of plaintiff, Decker laughed and said the court

28

would only dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. (Id.)
2

1

The third cause of action is titled “[First] Amendment to be free of retaliation.” (ECF No.

2

17 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dunham continues to tamper with, interfere with, and

3

constantly read plaintiff’s legal mail because of a lawsuit that plaintiff filed against Deputy

4

Decker. (Id. at 5.)

5
6

III.

Discussion
Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint and second amended complaint prior to any

7

screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (See ECF No. 15 at 3.) The undersigned previously

8

screened the second amended complaint and provided plaintiff with applicable legal standards for

9

the claims plaintiff sought to bring based on his allegations of placement in an unsanitary cell,

10

legal mail tampering, and retaliation. (Id. at 3-5.)

11

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint still fails to state a claim under the First Amendment

12

based on legal mail interference. In the Ninth Circuit, prisoners and detainees have a protected

13

First Amendment interest in having properly marked, confidential legal mail opened only in their

14

presence. See Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). However, only

15

mail from plaintiff’s lawyer or prospective lawyer is protected. See Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d

16

903, 909 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff fails to state a legal mail tampering claim based solely on

17

defendant Dunham reading mail sent to plaintiff from the court. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d

18

1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996) (“mail from the courts, as contrasted with mail from a prisoner’s

19

lawyer, is not legal mail”).

20

Plaintiff also has not stated a First Amendment access to courts claim, which requires a

21

prisoner to have suffered an actual injury to his direct criminal appeal, habeas petition, and/or

22

civil rights case. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 & 354 (1996). Actual injury in this

23

context is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the ability

24

to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348. The prisoner “must identify a

25

‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ underlying claim” and the specific remedy lost in order to give fair

26

notice of the allegations. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (quoting Lewis, 518

27

U.S. at 353 & n.3). The actual injury requirement for an access to courts claim applies to pretrial

28

detainee. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff does not allege an
3

1

actual injury as required to state an access to courts claim.

2

In addition, the facts alleged fall short of stating a plausible First Amendment retaliation

3

claim against defendant Dunham. Plaintiff does not identify the lawsuit at issue against Decker

4

that allegedly constituted plaintiff’s protected conduct, does not provide any details concerning

5

Dunham’s knowledge or involvement therewith, and does not allege any specific facts suggesting

6

Dunham’s conduct was retaliatory. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.

7

2005). (“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five

8

basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

9

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s

10

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate

11

correctional goal.”). The mere statement that defendant Dunham continues to read plaintiff’s legal

12

mail because of a lawsuit plaintiff filed against defendant Decker is too general and insufficient,

13

by itself, to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of

14

the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

15

(citation omitted).)
As an alleged pre-trial detainee, plaintiff additionally had a substantive due process right

16
17

to be free from restrictions that amount to punishment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539

18

(1979); Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1160 (9th Cir. 2003).

19

However, the facts alleged about defendant Dunham opening and reading plaintiff’s mail from

20

the courts do not suffice to suggest conduct that amounted to unconstitutional punishment in

21

violation of Fourteenth Amendment. Unless there is evidence of intent to punish, then conditions

22

or restrictions that are reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives do not violate

23

pretrial detainees’ right to be free from punishment. See Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 584

24

(1984).

25

On the other hand, plaintiff’s third amended complaint contains sufficient factual

26

allegations to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against defendant Decker. Plaintiff

27

alleges Decker placed plaintiff in an overcrowded cell covered in urine and feces from a clogged

28

toilet and ignored plaintiff’s complaints, causing plaintiff lay on the ground on his blanket soaked
4

1

in urine and feces for a period of 48 hours. For screening purposes, plaintiff adequately alleges he

2

was subjected to a lack of sanitation sufficiently severe or prolonged to state a claim against

3

defendant Decker. See generally Anderson v. Cty. of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1995);

4

Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 1985).
IV.

5

Leave to Amend

6

The only claim stated in the third amended complaint is a Fourteenth Amendment due

7

process claim against defendant Decker. Because it is not clear whether plaintiff could allege

8

additional facts to state a claim against defendant Dunham, plaintiff is granted one further

9

opportunity to amend.

10

Plaintiff must complete and return to the court the attached notice along with any optional

11

amended complaint. This opportunity to amend is not for the purposes of adding new and

12

unrelated claims. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Local Rule 220

13

requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference to any prior pleading. See

14

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Any amended complaint should be titled “Fourth

15

Amended Complaint” and should reference the case number.
Plaintiff is not required to file a further amended complaint and may instead choose to

16
17

proceed with service of process on the claim against defendant Decker. If plaintiff elects to

18

proceed on the claim against defendant Decker, the court will send plaintiff the necessary forms

19

for the complaint to be served.
V.

20

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. This summary

21
22

Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

is not intended as legal advice.

23

Your third amended complaint states a claim against defendant Decker related to your

24

conditions of confinement in an unsanitary cell. You cannot proceed on any other claims based on

25

your allegations. You may proceed against defendant Decker or file a further amended complaint.

26

You must complete the attached notice and return it to the court within 30 days from the date of

27

this order, along with any optional amended complaint.

28

////
5

1

VI.

Conclusion

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

3

1. For screening purposes, plaintiff’s third amended complaint states a Fourteenth

4

Amendment due process claim against defendant Decker related to plaintiff’s

5

conditions of confinement; no other claims are stated.

6

2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the

7

attached Notice of Election form along with any optional amended complaint.

8

3. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

9
10

dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.
Dated: March 7, 2025
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14

8, whit1685scrn.elect

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILSON LEBRANDON WHITE,

12

2:24-cv-01685-TLN-CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DECKER, et al.,

15

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ELECTION

Defendants

16
17

Check one:

18
19

_____

Plaintiff wants to proceed on the complaint as screened with a Fourteenth Amendment

20

due process claim against defendant Decker related to plaintiff’s conditions of

21

confinement. OR

22
23

____

Plaintiff wants to file a further amended complaint.

24
25
26
27

DATED:_______________________

Plaintiff pro se

28
7