Hamilton v. Sanchez
Filing
11
ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
EUGENE LAMAR HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 13-3410 PJH (PR)
vs.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
L. SANCHEZ,
Defendant.
/
12
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42
13
U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has
14
not filed a second amended complaint but instead filed a motion for reconsideration
15
regarding the dismissal with leave to amend. Docket No. 9.
16
In this action plaintiff alleges that the sole defendant retaliated against him for his
17
filing of a legal action. It is difficult to understand the exact allegations of plaintiff’s action
18
regarding events that occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison. In October 2011, plaintiff
19
was issued a Rules Violation Report (RVR) for possession of a weapon by two correctional
20
officers and he lost custody credits as a result. That RVR was later dismissed by prison
21
officials and plaintiff is proceeding with a legal action against the two correctional officers in
22
another case in this court on claims of excessive force and retaliation. See Hamilton v.
23
Rodriguez, No. C 12-4697 PJH (PR).
24
In this case, plaintiff states that defendant Sanchez denied plaintiff his custody
25
credits that should have been returned and then told other prisoners that plaintiff was a
26
child molester in retaliation for filing the other action in this court. Other than a conlcusory
27
statement, plaintiff provides no allegations to support his claim of retaliation nor does there
28
appear to be any harm. Plaintiff appealed after he was not returned his custody credits and
1
he states that a non-defendant Captain Walker ordered all of his credits to be restored.
2
Am. Compl. at 5. Nor is there is any indication that plaintiff was ever harmed from the
3
allegation that defendant told other prisoners that plaintiff was a child molester. Plaintiff
4
also discusses a RVR he received at another prison in Los Angeles in 2007 that resulted in
5
the loss of custody credits, but it is not clear how that involves the allegations against the
6
defendant at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff also appealed that incident and was
7
provided additional custody credits to expedite his release. Am. Compl. at 5. Plaintiff was
8
paroled in September 2013.
9
In the prior screening orders plaintiff was informed that he must provide more
support for his allegations, as his bare allegations were insufficient to state a retaliation
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
claim under Iqbal. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
12
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
13
misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S., at 678. To the extent there could be a due process
14
violation regarding plaintiff not being provided his custody credits it seems they were
15
returned and he provides no connection to this defendant regarding lost custody credits
16
from a prison in Los Angeles that were also later returned.1
17
With respect to the defendant telling other prisoners that plaintiff was a child
18
molester, plaintiff only states that the defendant disseminated this information to other
19
prisoners and he was a target. In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff provides no
20
additional information. While spreading this information is quite sufficient to serve as the
21
basis for a retaliation claim, plaintiff has again failed to support his claim with well-pleaded
22
factual allegations describing how the defendant allegedly accomplished this act and that it
23
was due to his filing the previous legal action.
24
25
1
26
27
28
Nor has plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated in this complaint that defendant or other
prison officials incorrectly determined his release date in violation of the Eighth Amendment
or due process. Nor does plaintiff state that he requested a hearing pursuant to Haygood v.
Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985), regarding his release date. To the extent he did
request relief regarding his custody credits, it seems prison officials complied in a timely
manner.
2
1
CONCLUSION
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 9) is DENIED.
3
2. Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint no later than February 7, 2014,
4
and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words
5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint
6
completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he
7
wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may
8
not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within
9
the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.
3. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
12
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.
13
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
14
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
17
18
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Hamilton3410.ord.wpd
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?