(PC) Glore v. Jodoin ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM R. GLORE, No. 2:21-cv-02126 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. JODOIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants violated his constitutional rights by falsely accusing 19 him of conspiring to commit murder. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (ECF No. 2) and plaintiff’s complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). 21 For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be 22 granted and the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 2 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 4 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 5 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 6 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 7 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 8 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 9 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 10 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 11 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915(b)(2). 13 SCREENING 14 I. Legal Standards 15 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 16 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 17 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 18 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 21 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 22 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 23 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 24 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 25 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 26 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of 27 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim 28 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 1 the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 2 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 3 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 4 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 5 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 6 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 7 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 8 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 9 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 10 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 11 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 12 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, 13 or other proper proceeding for redress. 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 15 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 16 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 17 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 18 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform 19 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 20 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 21 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 22 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 23 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 24 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 25 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 26 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 27 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 28 //// 1 II. Linkage Requirement 2 Under Section 1983, a plaintiff bringing an individual capacity claim must demonstrate 3 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. See Jones v. 4 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There must be an actual connection or link between 5 the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 6 Ortez v. Washington County, State of Oregon, 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Taylor 7 v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 8 Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a 9 theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (stating vicarious liability is inapplicable in 10 Section 1983 suits). Since a government official cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious 11 liability in Section 1983 actions, plaintiff must plead sufficient facts showing that the official has 12 violated the Constitution through his own individual actions by linking each named defendant 13 with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff's federal rights. 14 Id. at 676. 15 III. Allegations in the Complaint 16 In the complaint, plaintiff indicates that, at all relevant times, he was located at High 17 Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff names as defendants Correctional 18 Officer D. Jodoin, Lieutenant Brautigam, Sergeant Smith, and Correctional Officer Renteria. (Id. 19 at 2.) 20 Plaintiff’s complaint contains only a short statement of facts followed by a short request 21 for relief. The statement of facts says the following: 22 They told me I had to stab someone and I told them I wasn’t going to do that and I told them I want to go home and I was working out 23 and they started stabbing the victim. And I did nothing. At the next yard they attacked me three people because I did nothing. And they 24 were going to kill me. 25 (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff’s complaint also contains the following statement regarding 26 the relief requested by the plaintiff: “I would like to make a lawsuit on CDCR High Desert State 27 Prison employee Officer Jodoin and Lieutenant Brautigam and Officer Renteria for falsely 28 //// 1 accused to conspire murder.” (Id.) Plaintiff attaches exhibits to his complaint but otherwise does 2 not include any additional information. (See ECF No. 1.) 3 IV. Does Plaintiff State a § 1983 Claim? 4 The complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under §1983. Plaintiff has not clearly 5 alleged what constitutional or statutory rights he believes were violated. Plaintiff also has not 6 included any allegations identifying the actions or omissions by individual defendants that caused 7 the violation of plaintiff’s rights. See Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. From the 8 allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, it is unclear how the any of the defendants were involved with 9 the events plaintiff describes. The brief factual allegations provided by plaintiff only detail 10 actions taken by an unidentified group. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) As such, the complaint fails to satisfy 11 the linkage requirement and thus fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim. See 12 Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 13 As plaintiff may be able to state a claim, he will be given the opportunity to file an 14 amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that he must adhere to the following standards for stating 15 claims for relief under § 1983: 16 • Plaintiff must clearly identify each defendant and describe just what that defendant did 17 that violated his constitutional rights. 18 • Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a 19 substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 20 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 21 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an 22 act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). “Vague and 23 conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” 24 Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 25 • Plaintiff must make a short, plain statement of the facts supporting each claim. See Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 8(a). 27 • Plaintiff may allege multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). 28 However, he may not bring a claim against one defendant in the same case as an unrelated 1 claim against another defendant. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in 2 different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(g)). 4 • Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 5 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 6 contain a request for particular relief. In a civil rights case under § 1983, the relief 7 available includes monetary damages and appropriate injunctive relief. Plaintiff may not 8 seek release from custody in a § 1983 action. 9 • An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 10 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleadings are 11 superseded. 12 • Plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 13 1997e(a). 14 • The proper vehicle for seeking release from custody is a petition for a writ of habeas 15 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Plaintiff is warned that he must exhaust his state court 16 remedies before filing any habeas petition in this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). In addition, 17 plaintiff is warned that there is a one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus 18 petitions in the federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 19 Additionally, while it is not clear precisely what plaintiff’s claim is, based on the attached 20 documents, it may relate to inmate disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff also mentions false 21 accusations by defendants in the complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) To the extent plaintiff is 22 attempting to claim that false reports were filed against him, he is advised that the falsification of 23 a disciplinary report does not state a stand-alone constitutional claim. See Luster v. Amezcua, 24 No. 1:16-cv-0554-DAD-GSA-PC, 2017 WL 772141, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017). 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 2 This court finds above that plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a cognizable 3 claim against defendants. Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint/ 4 If plaintiff chooses to do so, he must address the problems with his complaint that are 5 explained above. Any amended complaint must be complete in itself. The court cannot refer to a 6 prior complaint to understand the plaintiff’s claims. 7 In an amended complaint plaintiff must clearly identify each defendant and the action that 8 defendant took that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The court is not required to review 9 exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named defendant. If 10 plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must include it in the body of the complaint. The charging 11 allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of the 12 claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support 13 of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 8(a). 15 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 16 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 17 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 18 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 19 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (stating that a person subjects another to the 20 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act, or omits to 21 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). “Vague and 22 conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. 23 Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 24 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 27 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 28 //// 1 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 2 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 3 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 5 set forth in short and plain terms. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) 6 (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus 7 litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 8 An amended complaint must be complete in itself, without reference to any prior pleading. 9 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 10 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has 11 evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule, the court may impose 12 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 13 //// 14 //// 15 //// 16 //// 17 //// 18 //// 19 //// 20 //// 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 4 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is 5 assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 8 6 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to 7 the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 8 concurrently herewith. 9 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend 10 4. Plaintiff is granted forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order to file an 11 amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended 13 complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “First 14 Amended Complaint;” failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order 15 will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 16 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint form 17 used in this district. 18 | Dated: September 2, 2022 20 1 -BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 DB:14 27 | DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/glor2126.scrn 28