(PC) Dixon v. Navarro ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DELMAR JEWELL DIXON, JR., Case No. 2:19-cv-01966-KJM-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS BE GRANTED 13 DANIEL NAVARRO, ECF No. 44 14 Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND TO 15 DISMISS DEFENDANT’S REPLY 16 ECF Nos. 43 & 46 17 18 19 Plaintiff Delmar Jewell Dixon, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 20 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendant Daniel Navarro violated his 21 due process rights by reporting that plaintiff was conspiring to distribute a controlled substance in 22 Mule Creek State Prison. Defendant Navarro has moved to dismiss this claim, ECF No. 44, and 23 his motion should, for the reasons stated hereafter, be granted. Plaintiff, for his part, has moved 24 both for early discovery, ECF No. 43, and to dismiss defendant’s reply to his opposition to the 25 motion to dismiss, ECF No. 47. Those motions will be denied. 26 27 28 1 2 Motion for Discovery 3 Plaintiff requests discovery that he argues is necessary to respond to defendant’s 4 “responsive pleading.” ECF No. 43. Plaintiff has not justified a need for early discovery. If my 5 recommendations are not adopted and this case proceeds, I will set a schedule for discovery. This 6 motion is denied. 7 Motion to Dismiss Reply 8 Plaintiff argues that defendant’s reply to his opposition should be dismissed because he 9 disagrees with the positions taken by defendant therein. ECF No. 47 at 1-2. Defendant, as the 10 movant, is entitled to a reply. Plaintiff is not entitled to a sur-reply, much less to strike a reply 11 with which he disagrees. This motion is denied. 12 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 13 I. Legal Standards 14 A complaint may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 15 granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a 16 plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 17 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff 18 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 19 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 20 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it 21 requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 22 678. 23 For purposes of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court generally considers only 24 allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly 25 subject to judicial notice, and construes all well-pleaded material factual allegations in the light 26 most favorable to the nonmoving party. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 27 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013); Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). 28 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based on either: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory, or 1 (2)insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 710 F.3d at 956. 2 Dismissal also is appropriate if the complaint alleges a fact that necessarily defeats the claim. 3 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984). 4 II. Analysis 5 Defendant argues that the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, do not establish that 6 he was responsible for any violation of plaintiff’s rights. ECF No. 44-1 at 7. I agree. Plaintiff 7 alleges that defendant falsely accused him of planning to distribute drugs in the prison and that, 8 based on those false accusations, other non-defendant officials punished him. ECF No. 22 at 9, 9 12. In a § 1983 action, each defendant is liable only for his or her own actions. See Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff 11 must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual 12 actions, has violated the Constitution.”). Plaintiff has not alleged that defendant was responsible 13 for punishing him. Thus, the question is whether authoring a false report about an inmate, 14 standing alone, is sufficient to violate his due process rights. I determine that it is not. 15 Other circuits have held that, standing alone, filing false disciplinary charges against an 16 inmate does not violate the inmate’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 17 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951-52 (2d Cir. 1986). Courts in 18 this circuit and judges in this district have found the same. See Solomon v. Meyer, No. 11-cv- 19 02827-JST (PR), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9865, 2014 WL 294576, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014); 20 Johnson v. Felker, No. 1:12-cv-02719 GEB KJN (PC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170474, 2013 WL 21 6243280, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013). I see no reason to distinguish, in this case, between false 22 disciplinary charges and a false report. 23 I find it unnecessary to reach defendant’s other arguments and recommend that the motion 24 to dismiss be granted on this basis. 25 It is ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, ECF No. 43, is DENIED. 27 2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s reply, ECF No. 47, is DENIED. 28 1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 44, be GRANTED. 3 2. The claim against defendant Navarro be dismissed without leave to amend. 4 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 7 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 8 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 9 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 10 | specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 11 | F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ August 23, 2022 Q_—— 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28