(PC) Corral v. Sullivan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL, No. 2:18-cv-1843 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SULLIVAN, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 20, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s amended 19 complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The amended complaint 20 was dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint. In the screening order, plaintiff 21 was informed as follows: 22 While it is not entirely clear, it appears that in plaintiff’s amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that when he was a pretrial detainee in the 23 Glenn County Jail, he was disciplined in the form of loss of unidentified “privileges” for arguing with an officer and for slamming a phone 24 during the same course of events. Plaintiff does not identify the privileges lost, nor the process afforded plaintiff, if any, before loss. 25 Therefore, he has not established any actionable injury. 26 Plaintiff is informed that pretrial detainees have due process protection for conduct that amounts to punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 27 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). But, “[n]ot every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to ‘punishment’ in the 28 constitutional sense. Id. at 537. “[I]f a particular condition or 1 restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to 2 ‘punishment.’” Id. at 539. 3 Petitioner suggests his right to not be subjected to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment has been violated. However, the Double 4 Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975). 5 6 Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on May 13, 2019 and that pleading is now 7 before the court for screening. It appears plaintiff was disciplined in the form of loss of family 8 visits and access to the prison commissary for periods of 10 and 15 days. The events resulting in 9 discipline both occurred on July 14, 2017. Plaintiff asserts since the events resulting in discipline 10 were part of the same “course of conduct,” his being disciplined twice violates the Due Process 11 Clause. At a minimum, plaintiff argues, the periods for loss of privileges should have run 12 concurrently. 13 Again, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 14 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 16 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 17 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 19 When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 20 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 21 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 22 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 The conduct alleged by plaintiff is simply not a violation of the Due Process Clause. 24 First, any harm suffered by plaintiff in this instance is de minimis rendering the protections of the 25 Due Process Clause inapplicable. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 539 n. 21. Further, no valid 26 interpretation of the Due Process Clause includes a requirement that multiple forms of discipline 27 cannot be imposed for multiple acts if they were part of the same series of events or “course of 28 ///// 1 | conduct.” Accordingly, the court will recommend that plaintiff's second amended complaint be 2 | dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that this case be closed. 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 4 | assign a district court judge to this case. 5 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 7 | which relief can be granted; and 8 2. This case be closed. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 12 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 | specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 15 } 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 | Dated: November 12, 2019 17 for ) It /» / a ig Caf uk. ve (A, CAROLYN K. DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 | 4 7 corr! 843.dis 23 24 25 26 27 28