Dumbrique v. Brunner et al
Filing
4
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 9/5/2014. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/31/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
EDWARD R. DUMBRIQUE,
8
Plaintiff,
vs.
9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
BRUNNER, et. al.,
Defendants.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 14-2598 PJH (PR)
/
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, 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, 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 states that defendants retaliated against him for engaging in two separate
hunger strikes.
"Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five
20
basic elements: (1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an
21
inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled
22
the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably
23
advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th
24
Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Accord Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995)
25
(prisoner suing prison officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was
26
retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action did
27
not advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and
28
discipline).
2
1
A prisoner must at least allege that he suffered harm, since harm that is more than
2
minimal will almost always have a chilling effect. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567-68 n.11; see
3
Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2001) (prisoner alleged injury by
4
claiming he had to quit his law library job in the face of repeated threats by defendants to
5
transfer him because of his complaints about the administration of the library).
6
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
7
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
8
conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or
9
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
12
486-487 (1994). Heck also bars a claim for using the wrong procedures in a disciplinary
13
hearing that resulted in the deprivation of time credits if "the nature of the challenge to the
14
procedures [is] such as necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment." Edwards v.
15
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997).
16
Plaintiff states that prison officials circulated a letter to inmates on September 27,
17
2011, which stated that participating in a mass disturbance such as a hunger strike or work
18
stoppage could result in disciplinary action. Approximately two years later plaintiff chose to
19
participate in two hunger strikes and received Rules Violation Reports for his participation.
20
As a result, plaintiff was assessed 90 loss of credits and other privileges. Plaintiff contends
21
that the Rules Violation Reports were in retaliation for engaging in a hunger strike.
22
However, plaintiff was notified well in advance that engaging in a mass disturbance hunger
23
strike could result in disciplinary action and prison officials trying to prevent mass
24
disturbances appears to advance a legitimate correctional goal. In the complaint, plaintiff
25
notes that he is not seeking restoration of his lost credits, yet he is seeking monetary
26
damages which would call into question the underlying disciplinary finding. This claim will
27
be dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to address these issues.
28
3
Plaintiff also states that during one of the hunger strikes a defendant guard yelled in
1
2
a loud voice in plaintiff’s housing unit that plaintiff needed to pack up his property and get
3
ready to move to the debriefer1 unit. Plaintiff responded that he was not a debriefer but the
4
defendant stated that plaintiff had to move. Plaintiff states a week later that another
5
defendant guard yelled that plaintiff needed to report to the “D Pod” where the debriefers
6
and hunger strikers were reporting. Plaintiff alleges that by referring to him as a debriefer
7
he could be harmed by other inmates. This claim is also dismissed with leave to amend for
8
plaintiff to provide more information to demonstrate retaliation. That inmates who were
9
engaged in a hunger strike were moved to a different part of the prison where debriefers
were also located does not necessarily show retaliation. Plaintiff should provide additional
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
information to demonstrate a constitutional violation other than what different inmates were
12
told by guards. Plaintiff must also address how this aspect of the claim is not barred by
13
Heck.
CONCLUSION
14
15
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the
16
standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than September
17
5, 2014, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the
18
words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint
19
completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he
20
wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may
21
not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.
22
2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
23
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
24
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.
25
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
27
28
1
It appears that plaintiff is referring to a gang debriefing.
4
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
3
4
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Dumbrique2598.dwlta.wpd
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?