Love v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 Complaint, filed by Kennard Isaiah Love. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/1/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KENNARD ISAIAH LOVE, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-01981-JD 12 13 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 argues that prison officials improperly classified him as a sex offender based on 13 his commitment crime. The Due Process Clause protects against the deprivation of liberty without 14 due process of law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). In order to invoke the 15 protection of the Due Process Clause, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty 16 interest for which the protection is sought. Id. Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process 17 Clause itself, or from an expectation or interest created by prison regulations. Id. The Due 18 Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in avoiding “more adverse 19 conditions of confinement.” Id. The existence of a liberty interest created by prison regulations is 20 determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 21 (1995). Such liberty interests are “generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes 22 atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” 23 Id. at 484; Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007). 24 Changes in conditions relating to classification and reclassification do not implicate the 25 Due Process Clause itself. See Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) 26 (citing Moody v. Dagget, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976)) (no constitutional right to particular 27 classification). Yet, the classification of an inmate as a sex offender may be the type of atypical 28 and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life that the 2 Supreme Court held created a protected liberty interest in Sandin. See Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 2 818, 827-30 (9th Cir. 1997). While such a liberty interest is not created merely by the requirement 3 that sex offenders participate in a specified treatment program, see id. at 830, in Neal the Ninth 4 Circuit found that “the stigmatizing consequences of the attachment of the ‘sex offender’ label 5 coupled with the subjection of the targeted inmate to a mandatory treatment program whose 6 successful completion is a precondition for parole eligibility create the kind of deprivations of 7 liberty that require procedural protections,” id. Under these circumstances, inmates are entitled to 8 procedural due process before being classified as sex offenders. See id. at 830-31 (inmates 9 entitled to procedural protections of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), including notice of 10 reasons for classification as sex offender and a hearing at which the inmate may call witnesses and 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 present documentary evidence in his defense). 12 Plaintiff states that an “R” suffix was improperly added to his custody designation which 13 denotes an underlying sex related offense. Plaintiff was charged as being an accomplice when 14 another defendant forced the victim to perform sex acts and assaulted her. Plaintiff pled guilty to 15 the assault but the sex related charges were dismissed. At a Unit Classification Committee 16 (“UCC”) hearing on September 17, 2014, the committee noted that plaintiff did not participate in 17 the sexual acts but added the “R” suffix because plaintiff had an opportunity to intercede in the 18 sexual assault but did not. Complaint at 9. 19 The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must provide more information 20 regarding any atypical and significant hardship associated with the “R” suffix and how the 21 procedural protections of Wolff were denied. Plaintiff must present specific allegations, simply 22 attaching exhibits is insufficient. Plaintiff may also wish to add as a defendant the Secretary of 23 CDCR, in order to obtain the injunctive relief he seek. This “R” suffix was added while in this 24 district, but plaintiff has since been transferred to a different prison in another district. CONCLUSION 25 26 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 27 be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 28 and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 3 1 page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 2 include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 3 Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 4 amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case. 5 2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 6 Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 7 of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 8 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 41(b). 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2016 12 13 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KENNARD ISAIAH LOVE, Case No. 16-cv-01981-JD Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, Defendant. 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 June 1, 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 Kennard Isaiah Love ID: AA-7389 California Men's Colony State Prison P.O. Box 8101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93409 19 20 21 Dated: June 1, 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

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?