Carrea vs. Beard

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/31/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2014)

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

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. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave
14
to amend and he has filed an amended complaint.
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, 556 U.S. 662,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

679 (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 only sets forth general allegations against the entire prison system. He

21

states that the entire state prison system has a history of improperly classifying African-

22

Americans as gang members and he himself was improperly classified as a gang member.

23

He provides no details regarding when or where he was classified as a gang member or

24

the evidence that was used. He also states that the inmate grievance system is ineffective,

25

but provides no specific examples.1 In addition, plaintiff is currently incarcerated at

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also feels that prisoners are not given enough money by the prison system
when they are released though he has failed to describe how this represents a violation of a
constitutional right against him.
3

1

California Men’s Colony which lies within the Central District of California and he describes

2

events that occurred there but does not discuss events in this district.

3

All of these deficiencies where discussed in the court’s initial review and plaintiff was

4

instructed to address these issues in the amended complaint. Plaintiff has again failed to

5

present specific allegations or address what events occurred in this district. "Under Ninth

6

Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can

7

possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks

8

merit entirely." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000); see also, Smith v.

9

Pacific Properties and Development Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Doe
v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) ("a district court should grant leave to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the

12

pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts."). As plaintiff was already

13

granted leave to amend, this appears to be one of those relatively rare cases when to grant

14

plaintiff leave to amend again would be patently futile based on the discussion above.

15

CONCLUSION

16
17

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file the amended complaint (Docket
No. 16) is GRANTED and the amended complaint is deemed timely filed.

18
19
20
21

2. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for the reasons set forth
above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31 , 2014.

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

22
23

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

24
25
26
27
28
4