Hollins v. Munks et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/19/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

MICHAEL HOLLINS,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

GREG MUNKS, et. al.,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-1289 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee incarcerated at Maguire Correctional Facility has filed a
13
pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and then an amended complaint
14
(Docket No. 7) that the court has reviewed. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
15
pauperis.
16
DISCUSSION
17
A.

Standard of Review

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

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11
For the Northern District of California

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

2

United States District Court

1

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

12

679 (2009).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

B.

18
19
20

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by jail staff and his property was improperly

confiscated.
When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement, the proper inquiry

21

is whether the conditions amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of

22

the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). The Due

23

Process Clause protects a post-arraignment pretrial detainee from the use of excessive

24

force that amounts to punishment. See Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10 (1989)

25

(citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535–39 (1979)); see also Gibson v. County of

26

Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit has stated the

27

factors a court should consider in resolving a due process claim alleging excessive force.

28

White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1507 (9th Cir. 1990). These factors are (1) the need for the
2

1

application of force, (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was

2

used, (3) the extent of the injury inflicted, and (4) whether force was applied in a good faith

3

effort to maintain and restore discipline. Id.

4

Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in

7

part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson v.

8

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). The

9

availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes

10

relief because it provides adequate procedural due process. King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d

11
For the Northern District of California

claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. Parratt v. Taylor, 451

6

United States District Court

5

825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for

12

any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing

13

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth Amendment

14

against the seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d

15

803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

16

In this amended complaint plaintiff only states that he was assaulted by three guards

17

who then took his postage stamps, glasses and other property. He identifies only one

18

guard and provides no other details about the incident. To the extent plaintiff references

19

his other filings he is informed that this amended complaint completely replaces the original

20

complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v.

21

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the

22

original complaint or other filings by reference. The amended complaint will be dismissed

23

with leave to amend to provide all his claims and the identifies of all the defendants in one

24

filing.

25

In addition, plaintiff has filed 14 other cases in the last few months, some with similar

26

claims. If he files a second amended complaint he should indicate the date of the alleged

27

incident and that the substance of this action is not duplicative of his other cases. Plaintiff

28

must also provide additional information concerning the actions of the specific defendants,
3

1

plaintiff’s actions and the injuries he suffered in order to demonstrate a cognizable claim of

2

excessive force.

3

CONCLUSION

4

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

5

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

6

June 23, 2014, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and

7

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

8

complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the

9

claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.
2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

18
19

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Hollins1289.dwlta.wpd

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4