(PC) Beaton v. Valley State Prison ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL NIVARD BEATON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00005-LJO-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. ) LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 VALLEY STATE PRISON, ) [ECF No. 1] ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Paul Nivard Beaton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 2, 2020. 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court 24 must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 25 or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary 26 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 28 /// 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 2 entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 3 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do 4 not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 5 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 6 in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 8 construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 9 Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which 10 requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is 11 liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 12 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and 13 “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility 14 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 15 II. 16 SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 17 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint as true only for the purpose of the sua 18 sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 Plaintiff’s complaint is handwritten and a majority of the statement of his claims are illegible. 20 However, it appears the crux of Plaintiff’s claim is that Sergeant D. Miller has retaliated against 21 Plaintiff by approving a Rules Violation Report (RVR) because Plaintiff attempted to file inmate 22 appeals. 23 III. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20 26 The Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure regarding the general formatting of his complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short 28 and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 1 “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1). A party 2 must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single 3 set of circumstances.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate 4 transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). 5 The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff’s claims. If 6 Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must set forth his claims in a simple, concise, and direct 7 manner in order to meet the requirements of Rule 8. 8 A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the same defendant. 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit where 11 the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions” and “any 12 question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” However, unrelated claims 13 that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 14 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is not only intended to avoid confusion that arises out of bloated 15 lawsuits, but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees for their lawsuits and prevent 16 prisoners from circumventing the three strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(g). 18 The Court advises Plaintiff that each claim that is raised in his second amended complaint must 19 be permitted by either Rule 18 or Rule 20. Plaintiff may state a single claim against a single defendant. 20 Plaintiff may then add any additional claims to his action that are against the same defendant under Rule 21 18. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18. Plaintiff may also add any additional claims against other defendants if those 22 claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions as his original claim. Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Any attempt to join claims that are not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure will result in those claims being dismissed as improperly joined. 25 B. Linkage Requirement 26 Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 27 federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 28 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 1 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, 2 but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada 3 ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 4 386, 393-94 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts 5 demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or 6 omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 7 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 8 C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 9 Plaintiff names Valley State Prison, as the sole Defendant. 10 The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought against the state, 11 including state agencies. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and 12 quotation marks omitted). While “[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against a state official 13 for prospective relief, Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1065-66, suits against the state or its agencies are barred 14 absolutely, regardless of the form of relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 15 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Medical Examiners, 678 F.3d 737, 740 n.1 (9th Cir. 16 2012). Thus, Plaintiff cannot bring a claim in this action against Valley State Prison. 17 D. Retaliation 18 “Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be free 19 from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Brodheim 20 v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 21 Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse 22 action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) 23 chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 24 advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). To 25 state a cognizable retaliation claim, Plaintiff must establish a nexus between the retaliatory act and the 26 protected activity. Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F.Supp.3d 1144, 1153 (E.D. Wash. 2014). 27 /// 28 /// 1 Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that his exercise of his First Amendment right was a 2 substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of 3 Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977); Sorrano’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th 4 Cir. 1989). Plaintiff must plead facts which suggest an absence of legitimate correctional goals for the 5 challenged conduct. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). Mere allegations of 6 retaliatory motive or conduct will not suffice. A prisoner must “allege specific facts showing 7 retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 8 560, 562, n.1 (10th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable retaliation claim. Plaintiff merely 9 states that Sergeant Miller approved an RVR because Plaintiff filed prior appeals. However, Plaintiff 10 fails to demonstrate that the RVR did not serve a legitimate penological interest or how he believes 11 Miller’s conduct was because he filed prior inmate appeals. In fact, the RVR was issued on November 12 14, 2019, and approved by Sergeant Miller on November 16, 2019. (Compl. p. 18.)1 However, 13 Plaintiff’s inmate appeal was not filed until November 22, 2019. (Id. at p. 15.) Accordingly, 14 Plaintiff’s factual allegations fail to give rise to a plausible claim for retaliation. 15 E. Inmate Appeal Process 16 “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 17 life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one 18 of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Plaintiff does not a 19 have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim 20 for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 21 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). 22 In addition, the Court cannot determine, at this stage, whether Plaintiff has exhausted the 23 administrative remedies because the failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear 24 the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. “[A]n inmate is required to exhaust those, 25 but only those, grievance procedures that are ‘capable of use’ to obtain ‘some relief for the action 26 27 1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the CM/ECF electronic court docketing system. 28 1 complained of.’” Ross v. Blake, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016)); see also Albino v. Baca, 747 2 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 F. Request for Relief 4 In order to state a claim for relief, a complaint must include “a demand for the relief sought.” 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). The relief portion of the complaint contains illegible handwriting and the 6 Court cannot determine the nature of the relief sought. In any amended complaint Plaintiff files, he 7 must clearly and legibly state the relief he seeks. 8 IV. 9 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 10 For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure 11 the deficiencies identified in this order. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 12 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each 13 named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 14 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 15 above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Further, Plaintiff may 16 not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 17 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints). 18 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey 19 v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must 20 be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 21 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 23 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 24 amended complaint; 25 3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length; and 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the Cou 2 will recommend to a district judge that this action be dismissed consistent with tl 3 reasons stated in this order. 4 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 (ee 6 |! Dated: _ January 14, 2020 OF 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28