(PC) Cortez v. Sacramento State Prison Officer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERICK CORTEZ, No. 2:23-cv-00170-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO STATE PRISON OFFICER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 28 1 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 2 the 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 I. Screening Requirement 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 where 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); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 17 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 18 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 19 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 20 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 21 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 22 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 23 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 24 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 25 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 26 II. Allegations in the Complaint 27 At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff was an inmate at the 28 California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). When asked to identify the defendant in this action, 1 plaintiff indicates that it is an “officer [although he] don’t know exactly who.” ECF No. 1 at 2. 2 In claim one, plaintiff indicates that he does not get treated equally, but the facts purporting to 3 support this claim are related to plaintiff’s prior convictions for theft and robbery. ECF No. 1 at 4 3. In the second claim for relief, plaintiff indicates that he wants assistance in contacting a family 5 member in San Diego. 6 III. Legal Standards 7 The following legal standards are provided based on plaintiff’s pro se status as well as the 8 nature of the allegations in the complaint. 9 A. Linkage 10 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 11 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 12 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 13 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 14 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 15 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 16 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 17 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 18 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 19 plaintiff's federal rights. 20 B. Equal Protection 21 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that persons who are 22 similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 23 432, 439 (1985); Hartmann v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 24 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 25 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). It applies both inside and outside of prison walls. Lee v. Washington, 26 390 U.S. 333, 333 (1968). To state a claim, plaintiff must show that defendant intentionally 27 discriminated against him based on his membership in a protected class. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 28 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. 1 City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). An individual's race is a protected class 2 for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) 3 (emphasizing that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 4 “are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard 5 to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality....”); see also Johnson v. California, 125 S. 6 Ct. 1141 (2005) (concluding that strict scrutiny standard of review applies to an equal protection 7 challenge to a prison regulation based on race). 8 C. Habeas versus Section 1983 Relief 9 While not entirely clear what relief plaintiff is seeking, it appears it may be connected to 10 plaintiff’s prior convictions. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the 11 relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole 12 federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus which plaintiff would seek under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 13 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Also, to the extent plaintiff seeks damages, 14 plaintiff is informed he cannot proceed on a §1983 claim for damages if the claim implies the 15 invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 16 IV. Analysis 17 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 18 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 19 court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required 20 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 21 complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones 22 v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least 23 some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. 24 Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the 25 complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 26 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 27 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 28 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 1 each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there 2 is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 3 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 4 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 5 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of 6 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 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 is because, as a 10 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 11 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 12 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 13 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 14 V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 15 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 16 intended as legal advice. 17 The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined that they do not 18 state any claim against the defendant. Your complaint is being dismissed, but you are being 19 given the chance to fix the problems identified in this screening order. 20 Although you are not required to do so, you may file an amended complaint within 30 21 days from the date of this order. If you choose to file an amended complaint, pay particular 22 attention to the legal standards identified in this order which may apply to your claims. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 25 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 26 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 28 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 1 |} herewith. 2 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 3 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 4 | complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 5 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number 6 || assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and 7 || two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 8 | this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 9 | Dated: June 5, 2023 / hice ANKE) flo "0 CAROLYNK.DELANEY/ 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 12/cort0170.14.new 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28