Hamilton v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 12

ORDER FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/22/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

EUGENE LAMAR HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF PARTIAL
DISMISSAL AND SERVICE

J. RODRIGUEZ, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-4697 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights
13
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to
14
amend. Plaintiff had filed an amended complaint that was dismissed and this case closed
15
as the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v.
16
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997), but the case was reopened after plaintiff indicated that
17
the prison disciplinary finding had been dismissed and presumably his lost credits were
18
restored. Docket Nos. 10, 11. Therefore, the court will screen the amended complaint.
19
DISCUSSION
20
A.

Standard of Review

21
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
22
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
23
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
24
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
25
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
26
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
27
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
28
///

1

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

2

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

3

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

4

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

5

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

12

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

13

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

14

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

15

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

16

1937, 1950 (2009).

17

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

18

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

19

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

20

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

21

B.

22

Legal Claims
Plaintiff states that defendants Rodriguez and Gonzalez used excessive force

23

against him while he was in a wheelchair and planted contraband on him in retaliation for

24

his prior federal civil rights complaint. These claims are sufficient to proceed.

25

Plaintiff also names another approximately eighteen defendants and states that they

26

conspired to have plaintiff found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and should have known of

27

the actions of Rodriguez and Gonzalez. Plaintiff has failed to link these remaining

28

defendants to any constitutional violation and only presents conclusory allegations of a
2

1

conspiracy. Simply that they were involved with the disciplinary process and did not believe

2

plaintiff, fails to demonstrate they conspired with the others. Plaintiff’s brief allegations

3

regarding due process violations in being placed in Administrative Segregation also fail to

4

state a claim.

5

A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted

6

action, intend to accomplish some unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another

7

which results in damage. Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir.

8

1999). To prove a civil conspiracy, the plaintiff must show that the conspiring parties

9

reached a unity of purpose or common design and understanding, or a meeting of the
minds in an unlawful agreement. Id. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations fail to demonstrate a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

conspiracy.

12

Interests protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from two sources--the Due

13

Process Clause itself and laws of the states. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27

14

(1976). Changes in conditions so severe as to affect the sentence imposed in an

15

unexpected manner implicate the Due Process Clause itself, whether or not they are

16

authorized by state law. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Deprivations

17

that are authorized by state law and are less severe or more closely related to the expected

18

terms of confinement may also amount to deprivations of a procedurally protected liberty

19

interest, provided that (1) state statutes or regulations narrowly restrict the power of prison

20

officials to impose the deprivation, i.e., give the inmate a kind of right to avoid it, and (2) the

21

liberty in question is one of "real substance." See id. at 477-87. Generally, "real

22

substance" will be limited to freedom from (1) a restraint that imposes "atypical and

23

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life," id. at

24

484, or (2) state action that "will inevitably affect the duration of [a] sentence," id. at 487.

25

The hardship associated with administrative segregation, such as loss of

26

recreational and rehabilitative programs or confinement to one's cell for a lengthy period of

27

time, is not so severe as to violate the Due Process Clause itself. See Toussaint v.

28

McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 1986) (applying Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460
3

1

(1983)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). Plaintiff’s allegations that he was deprived of

2

educational opportunities, employment, visitation and outdoor activities do not set forth a

3

claim.

4
5
6
7

CONCLUSION
1. All defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice against except J. Rodriguez and H.
Gonzalez.
2. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,

8

without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this

9

order on the following defendants: J. Rodriguez and H. Gonzalez at Salinas Valley State

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Prison.
3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

12

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a

13

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported

14

by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

15

Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming

16

from the events at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved

17

by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior to the date their summary

18

judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served on the

19

plaintiff.

20

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve,

21

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154

22

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.

23

4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and

24

Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss

25

for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement).

26

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

27

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

28

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,”
4

1

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

2

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

3

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to

4

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff

5

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

6

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th

7

Cir. 2003).

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

d. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen
days after the opposition is served upon them.
e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is
due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.
4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or

13

defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

14

document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

15

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the

17

parties may conduct discovery.

18

6. 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

20

of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

21

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

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

25
26

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Hamilton4697.srv.wpd

27
28
5

1

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

2

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case

3

dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue

7

of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result

8

of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter

9

of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

10

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot

11
For the Northern District of California

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

6

United States District Court

5

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

12

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as

13

provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and

14

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not

15

submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered

16

against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be

17

no trial.

18
19
20
21
22

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)
If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are
seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.
You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that

23

you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of

24

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that

25

is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they

26

are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions.

27
28

If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed
and there will be no trial.
6