(PC)Wessel v. Siskiyou County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARON EZRA WESSEL, No. 2:20-cv-2528 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SISKIYOU COUNTY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. On May 5, 2021, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon 20 which relief can be granted and granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now 21 filed an amended complaint. 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 24 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 27 In the amended complaint plaintiff blames Siskiyou County for providing false 28 information to the California Department of Corrections (CDCR) indicating that plaintiff had 1 either been charged with or convicted of a sex offense. While it appears CDCR recognized the 2 mistake shortly after plaintiff arrived in 2007 (ECF No. 10 at 8), plaintiff blames the fact that he 3 was attacked by two inmates in 2019 (Id. at 24) on the incorrect information. Plaintiff seeks 4 damages for the attack. 5 As plaintiff knows from the court’s prior screening order, municipalities cannot be held 6 vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Social 7 Services, 436 U.S. 585, 691, 694 (1978). “Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy 8 or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to 9 represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 10 1983.” Id. at 694. Nothing before the court suggests that the provision of incorrect information 11 to CDCR was the result of a Siskiyou County policy or custom as opposed to the independent and 12 unauthorized actions of an employee. 13 For these reasons, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s amended complaint be 14 dismissed. The court does not grant leave to amend a second time as that appears futile given the 15 instructions given to plaintiff as to the contents of his amended complaint, and the contents of the 16 amended complaint. There does not appear to be any reasonable universe of facts upon which 17 Siskiyou County can be liable for any of plaintiff’s injuries. 18 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 19 assign a district court judge to this case. 20 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 22 relief can be granted; and 23 2. This case be closed. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 28 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 1] || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: September 16, 2021 Card Kt | ([z4 □□□ 4 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 fi 9 wess2528.fis 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28