Carrea vs. Beard

Filing 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 11/22/2013. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/21/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

CHRISTOPHER CARREA, JR.,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

JEFFERY BEARD, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-3762 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, an inmate at California Men’s Colony, has filed a pro se civil rights
13
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
14
pauperis.
15
DISCUSSION
16
A.

Standard of Review

17
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1937, 1950 (2009).

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

B.

17
18
19

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that he has been improperly classified as a gang member and that

the inmate grievance system is ineffective.
The process constitutionally due to an inmate placed in segregation depends on

20

whether the placement is disciplinary or administrative. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d

21

1080, 1099 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515

22

U.S. 472 (1995). In Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit

23

determined that California's policy of placing suspected gang members in segregation is an

24

administrative decision, undertaken to preserve order in the prison. When an inmate is

25

placed in segregation for administrative purposes, due process requires only the following

26

procedures:

27
28

Prison officials must hold an informal nonadversary hearing within a
reasonable time after the prisoner is segregated. The prison officials must
inform the prisoner of the charges against the prisoner or their reasons for
2

1

considering segregation. Prison officials must allow the prisoner to present
his views.... [D]ue process [ ] does not require detailed written notice of
charges, representation by counsel or counsel-substitute, an opportunity to
present witnesses, or a written decision describing the reasons for placing the
prisoner in administrative segregation.

2
3
4

Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1100-01 (footnote omitted).

5

Prisoners are entitled to the minimal procedural protections of adequate notice and

6

an opportunity to be heard. Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287. In addition to these minimal

7

protections, there must be "some evidence" supporting the decision to place a prisoner in

8

segregated housing. Id. (citing Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985)). The

9

"some evidence" standard sets a low bar, consistent with the recognition that assignment of
inmates within prisons is "essentially a matter of administrative discretion," subject to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

"minimal legal limitations." Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287 (citing Toussaint, 801 F.2d 1080, with

12

respect to the minimal limitations). A single piece of evidence may be sufficient to meet the

13

"some evidence" requirement, if that evidence has "sufficient indicia of reliability." Id. at

14

1288.

15

In addition, there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or

16

grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v.

17

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); accord Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 565

18

(1974) (accepting Nebraska system wherein no provision made for administrative review of

19

disciplinary decisions).

20

Plaintiff provides very little information in his complaint and fails to identify any

21

specific defendants or describe their actions. He states that the entire state prison system

22

has a history of improperly classifying African-Americans as gang members and he himself

23

was improperly classified as a gang member. He provides no details regarding when or

24

where this occurred or the evidence that was used. He also states that the inmate

25

grievance system is ineffective, but provides no specific examples.

26

As currently presented these claims fail to state a claim for relief. In addition, plaintiff

27

is currently incarcerated at California Men’s Colony which lies within the Central District of

28

California and plaintiff references the Sierra Conservation Center prison which lies in the
3

1

Eastern District of California. Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to

2

provide additional information and indicate where the actions that gave rise to his claims

3

occurred.

4

CONCLUSION

5

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

6

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than November

7

22, 2013, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

8

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint

9

completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he
wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.

12

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

13

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

14

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

15

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

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

19
20

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Carrea3762.dwlta.wpd

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4