James v. Calipatria State Prison et al

Filing 8

ORDER: (1) Dismissing Defendants and Claims for Failing to State a Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b); and (2) Directing US Marshal to Effect Service of Second Amended Complaint on Remaining Defendants. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 1/22/2015.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LOUIS JAMES,
CDCR #AE-7438,

Civil No.

Plaintiff,

13
14

17
18
19
20
21

ORDER:
(1) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS
AND CLAIMS FOR FAILING TO
STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND
§ 1915A(b); AND

vs.

15
16

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON;
G.W. JANDA; A. CASTRO;
E. TRUJILLO; GROTH; R.N. NELSON;
CARPIO; M.C. MORALES; J.M.
BUILTEMAN; MARTEL; J.D.
LOZANO; CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Defendants.

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL
TO EFFECT SERVICE OF
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
ON REMAINING DEFENDANTS

22
23
24
25

I.

Procedural History

26

On April 17, 2014, Louis James (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Pleasant

27

Valley State Prison located in Coalinga, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil

28

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to
1

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On May 19, 2014,

2

this Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his

3

Complaint for failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary damages against immune

4

defendants. (See May 19, 2014 Order, ECF No. 3, at 8.) Plaintiff was granted leave to

5

file an amended complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by

6

the Court. (Id.) On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

7

(ECF No. 5.)

8

The Court, once again, conducted the required sua sponte screening and dismissed

9

Plaintiff’s FAC for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No.

10

6.) On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

11

(ECF No. 7.)

12

II.

Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

13

A.

Standard of Review

14

As the Court stated in its previous Orders, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

15

(“PLRA”) obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP

16

and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and]

17

accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the

18

terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as

19

soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under

20

these provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any

21

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek

22

damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

23

All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

24

the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

25

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

26

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

27

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

28

///
2

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

B.

42 U.S.C. § 1983

2

“Section 1983 creates a private right of action against individuals who, acting

3

under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights.” Devereaux v.

4

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff

5

must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the

6

United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color

7

of state law.” Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012).

8

C.

Defendants no longer named

9

In his SAC, Plaintiff no longer names as Defendants Calipatria State Prison, G.W.

10

Janda and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Thus, the claims

11

against these Defendants are waived and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these

12

Defendants from the docket. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

13

D.

Grievance procedures

14

Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants Morales, Builteman, Martel and Lozano liable

15

for constitutional violations based on their handling of his administrative grievances.

16

(See SAC at 2-3, 5.) The Fourteenth Amendment provides that: “[n]o state shall ...

17

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST.

18

amend. XIV, § 1. “The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the

19

deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of

20

liberty and property.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972).

21

statutes and prison regulations may grant prisoners liberty or property interests sufficient

22

to invoke due process protection. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). To

23

state a procedural due process claim, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) a liberty or property

24

interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government;

25

[and] (3) lack of process.” Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000).

State

26
27

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that prisoners have no protected property

28

interest in an inmate grievance procedure arising directly from the Due Process Clause.
3

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate

2

constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure”) (citing Mann v.

3

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that the due process clause of the

4

Fourteenth Amendment creates “no legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance

5

procedure”)).

6

In addition, once again, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show that

7

prison officials deprived him of a protected liberty interest by allegedly failing to respond

8

to his prison grievances in a satisfactory manner. While a liberty interest can arise from

9

state law or prison regulations, Meachum, 427 U.S. at 223-27, due process protections

10

are implicated only if Plaintiff alleges facts to show that Defendants: (1) restrained his

11

freedom in a manner not expected from his sentence, and (2) “impose[d] atypical and

12

significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin

13

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Plaintiff pleads nothing to suggest how the

14

allegedly inadequate review and consideration of his inmate grievances resulted in an

15

“atypical” and “significant hardship.” Id. at 483-84. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff

16

challenges the procedural adequacy of inmate grievance procedures, his SAC fails to state

17

a due process claim.

18

Because the Court has previously provided Plaintiff with two opportunities to

19

correct this deficiency of pleading and he as failed to do so, Plaintiff’s claims relating to

20

the handling of his administrative grievances are DISMISSED for failing to state a claim

21

without leave to amend.

22

E.

Access to Courts claim

23

As to Plaintiff’s remaining access to courts claim, the Court finds Plaintiff’s

24

allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C.

25

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).1 See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27. Accordingly, the Court

26

finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

27
1

28

Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of,
and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12[] motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.”
Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
4

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

(“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in

2

[IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a

3

United States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in

4

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

5

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

6

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Defendants Calipatria State Prison, G. W. Janda and the California

8

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are DISMISSED from this action. The

9

Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these Defendants from the docket.
2.

10

Defendants Morales, Builteman, Martel and Lozano and the claims against

11

them are DISMISSED from this action without leave to amend for failing to state a claim

12

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to

13

terminate these Defendants from the docket.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

15

3.

The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Second Amended

16

Complaint (ECF No. 7) upon the remaining Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff

17

along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk

18

shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of the Order granting Plaintiff leave to

19

proceed IFP (ECF No. 3), a certified copy of his Second Amended Complaint (ECF Doc.

20

No. 7), and the summons so that he may serve each named Defendant. Upon receipt of

21

this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and

22

accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the

23

instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Upon

24

receipt, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and

25

summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s. All costs

26

of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P.

27

4(c)(3).

28

///
5

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

4.

Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has been entered

2

by counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other

3

document submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the

4

original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in

5

which a true and correct copy of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for

6

Defendants, and the date of service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been

7

filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11
12

DATED: January 22, 2015
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)