Stewart v. Freitas et al
Filing
6
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/29/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
LEE RANDOLPH STEWART,
Plaintiff,
8
STEVE FREITAS, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
v.
9
10
Case No. 17-cv-01529-MEJ (PR)
12
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sonoma County Jail (“SCJ”), filed this pro se civil rights
13
14
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a
15
separate order. Based upon a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, it is
16
dismissed with leave to amend.
DISCUSSION
17
18
A.
Standard of Review
19
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
20
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
22
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
23
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
24
Pro se complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir.
25
2010).
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
27
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not
28
necessary; the statement need only “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
1
grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal
2
quotations omitted). Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations [in order to
3
state a claim], . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’
4
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
5
action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
6
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).
7
A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
8
at 570.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
9
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.
12
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
13
B.
14
Legal Claims
According the complaint, on January 8, 2017, while housed at SCJ, plaintiff refused an
15
order to move from a lower bunk to an upper bunk. The order was given by defendant deputy A.
16
Marlowe. Plaintiff alleges that he refused to move bunks because he had a disability, which was
17
documented. Marlowe proceeded to solicit a mental health worker to analyze plaintiff, which led
18
to plaintiff’s transfer to the mental health unit. Plaintiff identifies the mental health worker as
19
defendant John Doe.
20
Plaintiff filed inmate grievances challenging the housing reclassification. In the decisions
21
rejecting his grievances, he was informed that Marlowe was unaware of plaintiff’s lower bunk
22
accommodations and was acting under instructions from defendant Sergeant Gallaway, who had
23
suggested the mental health intervention based on plaintiff’s behavior after being directed to move
24
to an upper bunk.
25
1.
26
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects
27
individuals against governmental deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of
28
law. Interests that are procedurally protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from two
Due Process
1
sources: the Due Process Clause itself and laws of the states. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.
2
215, 223-27 (1976). In the prison context, these interests are generally ones pertaining to liberty.
3
Changes in conditions so severe as to affect the sentence imposed in an unexpected manner
4
implicate the Due Process Clause itself, whether or not they are authorized by state law. See
5
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (citing Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 493 (1980)
6
(transfer to mental hospital), and Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990) (involuntary
7
administration of psychotropic drugs)). Deprivations that are less severe or more closely related to
8
the expected terms of confinement may also amount to deprivations of a procedurally protected
9
liberty interest, provided that the liberty in question is one of “real substance.” See Sandin, 515
U.S. at 477-87. An interest of “real substance” will generally be limited to freedom from restraint
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
that imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
12
incidents of prison life” or “will inevitably affect the duration of [a] sentence.” Id. at 484, 487.
13
Here, plaintiff alleges that he spent six weeks in the mental health unit causing him to miss
14
classes, which classes would have allowed him to earn milestone credits towards his sentence.
15
Accepting that as true, as the court must at the pleading stage, the complaint alleges sufficient
16
facts to show an atypical and significant hardship was imposed on plaintiff. However, the
17
complaint does not sufficiently link any defendant to this claim. Specifically, although plaintiff
18
alleges that defendants Marlowe and Gallaway ordered a mental health analysis, he does not
19
establish that these defendants, or any other defendant(s), were responsible for the decision to
20
transfer plaintiff to the mental health unit without due process. Leave to amend will be granted so
21
that plaintiff may allege facts, if they exist, showing who made the housing decision. In his
22
amended complaint, plaintiff also must identify the procedural protections – such as notice or a
23
hearing – not provided to him before he was transferred.
24
2.
John Doe Defendant
25
The use of “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored in the Ninth
26
Circuit. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Although the use of a Doe
27
defendant designation is acceptable to withstand dismissal of a complaint at the initial review
28
stage, using a Doe defendant designation creates its own problem: the person identified as a Doe
1
cannot be served with process until he or she is identified by his or her real name. If plaintiff files
2
an amended complaint and seeks to include the SCJ mental health worker identified as John Doe
3
as a defendant, plaintiff must take steps promptly to discover the full name (i.e., first and last
4
name) of John Doe and provide that information to the Court in his amended complaint. The
5
burden remains on the plaintiff; the Court cannot undertake to investigate the names and identities
6
of unnamed defendants.
7
3.
8
With respect to defendant Sheriff Freitas, plaintiff appears to have named this individual as
9
Defendant Sheriff Freitas
a defendant because of his supervisory role. Plaintiff is advised that a supervisor is not liable
merely because the supervisor is responsible, in general terms, for the actions of another. Taylor
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village,
12
723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may be liable only on a showing of
13
(1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection
14
between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden,
15
678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff is given leave to amend to add such allegations, if
16
he truthfully can do so.
17
4.
Defendants Huddleston and Cooper
18
Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants Lieutenant Huddleston and Sergeant Cooper
19
mishandled his inmate grievances are dismissed for failure to state a claim under § 1983 because it
20
is well established that there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or
21
grievance system, see Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855
22
F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), and that a state’s creation of a prison administrative appeal or
23
grievance system does not implicate a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, see
24
Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495
25
(8th Cir. 1993) (same). These allegations are dismissed without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
26
27
For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:
28
1.
The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff believes he can cure
1
the above-mentioned deficiencies in good faith, plaintiff must file an AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. The pleading must be simple and concise and
3
must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (17-1529 MEJ (PR)) and the
4
words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from
5
the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will
6
result in the dismissal of the action. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a blank
7
civil rights form along with his copy of this order.
8
2.
Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint will supersede existing pleadings
and must be a complete statement of his claims, except that he does not need to plead again any
10
claim the court has dismissed without leave to amend. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer
12
defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).
In his amended complaint, plaintiff must be careful to allege facts showing the
13
14
basis for liability for each defendant. He should not refer to them as a group (e.g., “the
15
defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each of them to
16
his claim by explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of
17
his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
18
3.
It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
19
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of
20
Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do
21
so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
22
Civil Procedure 41(b).
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2017
25
26
27
28
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
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?