Pratt v. Hedricks et al

Filing 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 Complaint filed by Ryant Trimale Pratt. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/29/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
B. HEDRICKS, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01129-JD

12
13
14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Docket No. 1. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION

15
16

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

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

18

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

19

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

20

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

22

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

23

Cir. 1990).

24

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

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

26

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

27

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

28

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

1

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

2

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

4

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

5

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

6

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

7

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

8
9
10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

LEGAL CLAIMS

12

Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing. The

13

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being deprived of life,

14

liberty, or property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).

15

The procedural guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses apply

16

only when a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is at stake. See Ingraham v.

17

Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672-73 (1977). Liberty interests can arise both from the Constitution and

18

from state law. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460,

19

466 (1983). The Due Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in

20

avoiding “more adverse conditions of confinement.” Id. The Due Process Clause itself does not

21

confer on inmates a liberty interest in being confined in the general prison population instead of

22

administrative segregation. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 466-68.

23

With respect to liberty interests arising from state law, the existence of a liberty interest

24

created by prison regulations is determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin

25

v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995). Liberty interests created by prison regulations are

26

limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate

27

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484. When conducting the Sandin

28

inquiry, Courts should look to Eighth Amendment standards as well as the prisoners’ conditions of
2

1

confinement, the duration of the sanction, and whether the sanctions will affect the length of the

2

prisoners’ sentence. See Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1078. The placement of an inmate in the SHU

3

indeterminately may amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest of “real substance” within the

4

meaning of Sandin. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224.

5

The Supreme Court has established five procedural requirements for disciplinary hearings.

6

See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 539. First, “written notice of the charges must be given to the disciplinary-

7

action defendant in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the facts and

8

prepare a defense.” Id. at 564. Second, “at least a brief period of time after the notice, no less

9

than 24 hours, should be allowed to the inmate to prepare for the appearance before the
[disciplinary committee].” Id. Third, “there must be a ‘written statement by the factfinders as to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the evidence relied on and reasons’ for the disciplinary action.” Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer,

12

408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)). Fourth, “the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed

13

to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so

14

will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Id. at 566. Fifth,

15

“[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved . . . or where the complexity of the issues makes it

16

unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate

17

comprehension of the case, he should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or . . . to have

18

adequate substitute aid . . . from the staff or from a[n] . . . inmate designated by the staff.” Id. at

19

570. The Court specifically held that the Due Process Clause does not require that prisons allow

20

inmates to cross-examine their accusers, see id. at 567-68, and does not give rise to a right to

21

counsel in the proceedings, see id. at 569-70.

22

Plaintiff states that he was improperly found guilty of committing a battery on another

23

inmate resulting in serious bodily injury. However, plaintiff does not describe his punishment and

24

if it meets the legal standards above to obtain relief. Nor has plaintiff described how the hearing

25

violated his constitutional rights with respect to Wolff. The complaint is dismissed with leave to

26

amend to address these deficiencies.

27
28
3

CONCLUSION

1
2

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must

3

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption

4

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

5

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

6

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

7

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

8

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

9

2.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

12

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

13

Civil Procedure 41(b).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2016

16
17
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,

Case No. 16-cv-01129-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

B. HEDRICKS, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on September 29, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Ryant Trimale Pratt ID: H-06191
Salinas Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960

19
20
21

Dated: September 29, 2016

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
5