(PC) Maddox v. Lara ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEMONTA MADDOX, No. 2:22-cv-1545 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 Y. LARA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By 18 order filed April 24, 2023, the undersigned screened the complaint and found that it did not state a 19 claim for relief. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint and 20 has now filed a first amended complaint. ECF No. 10. 21 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 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). 24 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 25 “frivolous, malicious, or 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). 27 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 1 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 2 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 3 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 4 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 5 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 6 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 7 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 8 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 9 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 10 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 11 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 12 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 13 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 14 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 15 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 16 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 17 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 18 cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 19 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 20 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 21 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 22 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 25 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 26 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 27 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 28 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 The complaint appears to set forth three claims against defendants Lara, Mitchell, and 3 Haynie: two Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, and an Eight Amendment failure to 4 protect claim. ECF No. 10. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Mitchell tampered with a rules 5 violation report (RVR) for indecent exposure filed by Lara, to add false charges that the plaintiff 6 was masturbating. Id. at 2-3. As a result of this altered version of the report, plaintiff was placed 7 in administrative segregation by Haynie. Id. at 2. Haynie’s failure to conduct sufficient review of 8 the charges in the RVR before finding the plaintiff responsible for said indecent exposure and 9 masturbation and placing him in administrative segregation further violated due process. Id. at 2, 10 5. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the defendants conduct put him at risk from other inmates 11 because masturbating is considered “totally unexceptable [sic].” Id. at 4. 12 III. Failure to State a Claim 13 A. Falsifying Documents 14 Plaintiff’s allegation that Mitchell violated his due process rights when he altered Lara’s 15 report with the addition of falsified charges fails to state a claim for relief. See Hines v. Gomez, 16 108 F.3d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]here are no procedural safeguards protecting a prisoner 17 from false retaliatory accusations.”). To the extent that the plaintiff alleges that defendants Lara 18 and Haynie violated his rights by failing to investigate and correct said falsified report, he also 19 fails to state a claim. 20 B. Due Process 21 “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full 22 panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 23 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (citation omitted). Rather, with respect to prison disciplinary proceedings 24 that include the loss of good-time credits, an inmate must receive (1) twenty-four-hour advanced 25 written notice of the charges against him, id. at 563-64; (2) “a written statement by the factfinders 26 as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action,” id. at 564 (citation and 27 internal quotation marks omitted); (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary 28 evidence where doing so “will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional 1 goals,” id. at 566; (4) assistance at the hearing if he is illiterate or if the matter is complex, id. at 2 570; and (5) a sufficiently impartial fact finder, id. at 570-71. In addition, due process requires 3 that the disciplinary decision be supported by “some evidence.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 4 445, 455 (1985). Plaintiff has not provided facts showing that he was denied any of the minimum 5 protections guaranteed by Wolff, let alone that defendants were responsible for such denials. 6 Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to allege due process violations in connection 7 with his disciplinary proceedings, he fails to state a claim. 8 To the extent that plaintiff may be attempting to state a claim based upon his placement in 9 administrative segregation, he also fails to state a claim. When an inmate is placed in 10 administrative segregation, the Constitution requires only that he be given “an informal, 11 nonadversary review of the information supporting [his] administrative confinement, including 12 whatever statement [he] wishe[s] to submit, within a reasonable time after confining him to 13 administrative segregation.” Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472 (1983), overruled on other 14 grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “An inmate must merely receive some notice 15 of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to the prison official charged 16 with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation. Ordinarily a written 17 statement by the inmate will accomplish this purpose . . . .” Id. at 476. There are no allegations 18 demonstrating that any defendant failed to provide plaintiff these protections. 19 C. Failure to Protect 20 Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from 21 violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) 22 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must 23 show that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm” and 24 that the prison official knew of and was deliberately indifferent to this risk. Id. at 834. 25 While the plaintiff alleges that charges of masturbation are unacceptable in prison and put 26 him at risk of violence from other inmates, he fails to allege facts showing that information 27 regarding his charges was provided to other inmates or that defendants were involved in 28 disseminating information of the charges to other inmates. To the extent plaintiff may be 1 attempting to claim that other officers spread word of his charges, he does not allege facts 2 indicating that defendants were responsible for the conduct of those other officers or that they 3 knew that other officers would purposely disseminate those charges. The complaint therefore 4 fails to state a viable claim for failure to protect. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (Eighth 5 Amendment failure to protect claim requires showing that “the official [knew] of and 6 disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”). 7 IV. Leave to Amend 8 The complaint does not state any cognizable claims for relief and plaintiff will be given 9 one final opportunity to amend the complaint. If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended 10 complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a 11 deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the 12 complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l 13 Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions 15 and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 16 Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 17 are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 18 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 19 his second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 20 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 21 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 22 1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 23 Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 24 in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a second amended 25 complaint, neither the original complaint nor the first amended complaint serve any function in 26 the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 27 involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff must use the complaint 28 //// 1 form provided by the court to ensure that the defendants against whom the claims are alleged and 2 the nature of those claims are clearly defined. 3 V. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 4 Your complaint will not be served because the facts you alleged are not enough to state a 5 claim. Falsifying an RVR does not violate your right to due process, and although you allege that 6 defendants failed to investigate the charges sufficiently, you do not allege any facts showing that 7 you were not provided the procedural protections required during your disciplinary hearing or 8 when you were put in administrative segregation. As for your failure to protect claim, although 9 you allege that the RVR puts you at risk of harm by other inmates, you fail to allege facts 10 showing that any defendant was involved in spreading information to other inmates about the 11 indecent exposure and masturbation charges against you, whether by disclosing your RVR 12 directly to other inmates or any other means. Therefore, you do not allege any facts showing that 13 defendants failed to protect you from violence from other inmates. 14 You may amend your complaint to try to fix these problems. Be sure to provide facts that 15 show exactly what each defendant did to violate your rights or to cause a violation of your rights. 16 You should also be sure to use the complaint form provided by the court to file your second 17 amended complaint. 18 If you choose to file a second amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to 19 bring. Once an amended complaint is filed, the court will not look at any information in the 20 original complaint or in the first amended complaint. Any claims and information not in the 21 second amended complaint will not be considered. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and will not be served. 25 2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file a second 26 amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 27 of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the 28 docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure 1 | to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that 2 || this action be dismissed. 3 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 4 | form used in this district. 5 || DATED: June 13, 2023 ~ 6 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28