(PC) Hall v. California Medical Facility ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAMIEN LASHON HALL, No. 2:23-cv-0741 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that inmates at the California Health Facility sexually assaulted 20 his fiancée, a correctional officer. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his complaint (ECF No. 1) for screening. For the reasons set 22 forth below, the undersigned will recommend that the complaint be dismissed without leave to 23 amend and that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot. 24 SCREENING 25 I. Legal Standards 26 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 27 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 28 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 1 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 2 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 4 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 5 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 6 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 7 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 8 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 9 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 10 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 11 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 12 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 13 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 14 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 15 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 16 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 17 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 18 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 19 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 20 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 21 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 22 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 23 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, 24 or other proper proceeding for redress. 25 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 26 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 27 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 28 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 1 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 2 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 3 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 4 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 5 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 6 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 7 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 8 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 9 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 10 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 11 II. Allegations in the Complaint 12 Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and his fiancée, whom he identifies as a 13 correctional officer. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 12.) He names California Medical Facility (“CMF”), San 14 Quentin State Prison (“SQ”), and Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) as defendants. (Id. at 12.) 15 The complaint alleges that his fiancée was raped at CMF “by inmates from East Oakland gangs 16 and Lancaster gangs.” (Id. at 3.) In lieu of factual allegations, it instructs the court to “check 17 grievance/ISU records.”1 (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff seeks $2,840,000 in damages. (Id. at 1, 9.) 18 III. Does Plaintiff State a Claim under § 1983? 19 Examination of the complaint and the court’s docket reveals that the complaint in this 20 action contains allegations nearly identical to, and therefore duplicative of, pleadings filed in Hall 21 v. Gary, 2:23-cv-0680 (E.D. Cal.). In that case, the court dismissed the first amended complaint 22 for failure to state a cognizable claim and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 23 complaint. (2:23-cv-0680, ECF No. 7.) To date, plaintiff has not filed a second amended 24 complaint in that action. 25 “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 26 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 27 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising 28 1 Plaintiff did not file any additional documents with the complaint. 1 from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 2 dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 3 “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 4 proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” 5 Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 6 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 7 To determine whether a claim is duplicative, courts use the test for claim preclusion. 8 Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, 9 [courts] examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to 10 the action, are the same.” Id. at 689 (citations omitted). “Plaintiffs generally have no right to 11 maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same 12 court and against the same defendant.” Id. at 688 (internal quotation marks and citations 13 omitted). 14 In Hall v. Gary, plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleged that two CMF inmates 15 affiliated with “the east Oakland and Lancaster gangs of California” raped his fiancée, a 16 correctional officer. (2:23-cv-0680, ECF No. 4 at 3.) It named the wardens of CMF, SQ, and 17 MCSP as defendants. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff sought $2,840,000 in damages. (Id.) The court 18 dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend because it failed to state a cognizable 19 claim. (ECF No. 7.) 20 For these reasons, the court finds that this action is duplicative of Hall v. Gary, 2:23-cv- 21 0680 (E.D. Cal.) Accordingly, the complaint (ECF No. 1) should be dismissed. 22 LEAVE TO AMEND 23 For the reasons stated above, the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. 24 The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a 25 claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include 26 undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan 27 Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath 28 Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall 1 | be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). Here, given that □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 | allegations are duplicative of allegations he made in another pending action, the undersigned 3 | finds that granting leave to amend would be futile. 4 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 5 As stated above, plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 6 | 28 U.S.C. § 1915 along with the complaint. (ECF No. 2.) However, because the undersigned 7 || recommends dismissal of this action without leave to amend, it is recommended that □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 || request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 11 | shall randomly assign a district judge to this action. 12 IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. The complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without leave to amend; and 14 2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied as moot. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States Magistrate Judge 16 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 17 | after being served these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 18 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 19 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 20 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 21 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 | Dated: December 12, 2023 23 24 25 DB DE Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/hall0741.sern OR re Ok a tk RATE JUDGE 26 27 28