(PC) Kuykendall v. Superior Court of CA ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD KUYKENDALL, II, No. 2:20-cv-1590 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 26 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 27 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 28 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 Screening Standards 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 7 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 8 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 12 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 14 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 15 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 16 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 17 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 18 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 19 1227. 20 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 22 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 23 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 24 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 25 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 26 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 27 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 28 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 1 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 2 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 3 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 4 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 5 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint 7 Plaintiff states he is innocent until proven guilty and no medical testing for Covid-19 is 8 being done. He contends that the Center for Disease Control recommendations are not being met 9 for Covid-19. He contends such failures violate the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, 10 the California Constitution, and subject plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff seeks 11 money damages and release from custody. 12 Discussion 13 Named Defendants 14 Plaintiff names three defendants: Superior Court of California; Rio Cosumnes 15 Correctional Center, and County of Sacramento. First, the superior court is not a proper 16 defendant. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: 17 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . .to the deprivation 18 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 19 or other proper proceeding for redress. 20 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Superior Court of California is not a “person” and therefore cannot be 21 sued. 22 Second, defendants County of Sacramento and the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center 23 (which is operated by Sacramento County), together constitute a single defendant: Sacramento 24 County. See, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Ctr. for Bio-Ethical 25 Reform v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Dept., 533 F.3d 780, 786 (9th Cir. 2008) (suit against 26 county sheriff equivalent to suit against county). 27 To state a claim against a local governmental entity (i.e. Sacramento County), a plaintiff 28 must allege that a specific “policy or custom” of the agency was the “moving force” causing the 1 alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). A 2 local governmental entity may not be held liable under a respondeat superior theory premised on 3 the individual conduct of its subordinates. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. 4 Civil Rights v. Habeas Relief 5 Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint under § 1983 seeks release from custody. However, 6 when a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the 7 determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a 8 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 9 (1973). A federal habeas corpus action is only available if plaintiff has been convicted and has 10 exhausted his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). 11 Fourteenth Amendment1 12 Governing Standards 13 Where a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of confinement, however, such claims 14 “arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than under the Eighth 15 Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 16 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The standard under the Fourteenth 17 Amendment for a pretrial detainee “differs significantly from the standard relevant to convicted 18 prisoners, who may be subject to punishment so long as it does not violate the Eighth 19 Amendment’s bar against cruel and unusual punishment.” Olivier v. Baca, 913 F.3d 852, 858 20 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). 21 “In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention that 22 implicate only the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, . . . the 23 proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Bell v. 24 Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979);2 see also Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 583-85 (1984). 25 1 Although plaintiff mentions the Sixth Amendment, he raises no facts implicating the Sixth Amendment. 26 27 2 In Bell, the Court considered a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, the same standards apply to due process claims brought under the Fourteenth 28 Amendments. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 702 n.3 (1976) (“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment 1 “Not every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to ‘punishment’ in the 2 constitutional sense[.]” Bell, 441 U.S. at 537. “Loss of freedom of choice and privacy are 3 inherent incidents of confinement,” and the fact that detention “interferes with the detainee’s 4 understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible and with as little restraint as possible 5 during confinement does not convert the conditions or restrictions of detention into 6 ‘punishment.’” Id. 7 Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish by jail officials, “if a particular 8 condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental 9 objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’” Id. at 539. Thus, “[r]estraints that 10 are reasonably related to the institution’s interest in maintaining jail security do not, without 11 more, constitute unconstitutional punishment, even if they are discomforting[.]” Id. at 540. 12 Prison and jail administrators are “accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and 13 execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and 14 discipline and to maintain institutional security,” id. at 547, “unless the record contains 15 substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to 16 problems of jail security,” Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 17 318, 322-23 (2012). “[I]n the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the 18 officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to 19 their expert judgment in such matters.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 540 n.23 (internal quotation marks 20 omitted). 21 A pretrial detainee’s conditions of confinement claim is governed by a purely objective 22 standard. See Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1124-25.3 A pretrial detainee must therefore show that: (1) a 23 24 imposes no more stringent requirements upon state officials than does the fifth upon their federal counterparts.”) 25 3 The Ninth Circuit has extended the objective deliberate indifference standard to pretrial 26 detainee conditions of confinement claims addressing the denial of medical care, failure to 27 protect, and excessive force claims, and Gordon suggests the circuit will extend the standard to all pretrial detainee conditions of confinement claims. See Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1120, 1124 & n.2 28 (citation omitted). 1 particular defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the 2 pretrial detainee was confined; (2) those conditions put him at substantial risk of suffering serious 3 harm; (3) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though 4 a reasonable officer in similar circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk -- 5 making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (4) by not taking such 6 measures, the defendant caused the detainee’s injuries. Id. 7 With respect to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be objectively 8 unreasonable, a test that “turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Kingsley 9 v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A court must 10 make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what 11 the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. 12 Here, Covid-19 “poses a substantial risk of serious harm” to prisoners. Plata v. Newsome, 13 2020 WL 1908776, at *1, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70271 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020). Nonetheless, 14 state and county officials are taking steps to reduce such risk. See id. at *1 (noting measures 15 implemented to reduce infection and transmission of Covid-19 among state prisoners, including 16 through increased sanitation, testing and social distancing). Such efforts must be considered in 17 determining whether a defendant’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic is objectively 18 unreasonable. 19 In the instant complaint, plaintiff alleges generalized concerns that he may be exposed to 20 Covid-19 while housed at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center. He alleges that CDC 21 recommendations are not being met, and he is not being tested. But such general allegations are 22 insufficient to state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. In order to state a cognizable 23 claim, plaintiff must specifically identify a defendant’s challenged conduct, explain how such 24 conduct is unreasonable under the circumstances, and describe how such conduct harmed 25 plaintiff. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (“A person ‘subjects’ another to 26 the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative 27 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is leally required 28 to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”) Plaintiff alleges no facts against a 1 properly named defendant that suggest the defendant acted with reckless disregard to plaintiff’s 2 conditions of confinement or that such conditions put plaintiff at substantial risk of harm. 3 Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. 4 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 5 Finally, plaintiff cannot pursue a claim in this court that he has not exhausted through an 6 inmate appeal procedures that is available at his place of incarceration. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 7 (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any 8 other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 9 such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”). Although exhaustion is not 10 required “when circumstances render administrative remedies ‘effectively unavailable,’ ” Sapp v. 11 Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted), the Ninth Circuit requires “a 12 good-faith effort on the part of inmates to exhaust a prison's administrative remedies as a 13 prerequisite to finding remedies effectively unavailable,” Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023, 1035 14 (9th Cir. 2012). The exhaustion requirement accords prisoners the possibility of obtaining more 15 immediate and effective relief. The requirement provides an opportunity for correctional officials 16 to address complaints internally, thereby deterring frivolous lawsuits and creating an 17 administrative record should the matter later proceed to court. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 18 516, 525 (2002). “The primary purpose of a grievance . . . is to alert the [jail] to a problem and 19 facilitate its resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 20 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 Leave to Amend 22 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so generalized, vague and 23 conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a 24 claim for relief, and the complaint must be dismissed. The court, however, grants leave to file an 25 amended complaint. 26 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 27 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 28 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 1 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 2 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 3 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 4 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 5 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 6 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 7 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 8 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 9 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 10 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 11 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 12 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 13 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 14 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 15 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 16 Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this 17 action be dismissed without prejudice. 18 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 20 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 21 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 23 Sheriff of Sacramento County filed concurrently herewith. 24 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 25 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 26 Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 27 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 28 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 1 | Plaintiffs amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 2 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 3 | also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled ““Amended Complaint.” 4 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 5 | dismissal of this action. 6 | Dated: November 10, 2020 Fens Arn 8 | auykispo.i4nerd UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD KUYKENDALL, II, No. 2:20-cv-1590 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et 14 al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 18 filed______________. 19 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: 20 21 ________________________________ Plaintiff 22 23 24 25 26 27 28