(PC) Brown v. Flores ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAMEED J. BROWN, No. 2:23-cv-02487-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FLORES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request 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 separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 I. Screening Requirement 2 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 3 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 4 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 5 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 7 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 8 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 9 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 10 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 11 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 12 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 13 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 14 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 15 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 16 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 17 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 18 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 19 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 20 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 21 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 22 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 23 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 24 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 25 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 26 II. Allegations in the Complaint 27 Plaintiff alleges that on November 3, 2022, when he was an inmate at High Desert State 28 Prison, three correctional officers falsely issued him a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) for being 1 involved in a riot. Plaintiff contends that videotape evidence demonstrates that he did not use any 2 force or engage in violence that would disturb the peace. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. 3 III. Legal Standards 4 A prisoner has no constitutionally-guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly 5 accused of conduct that may lead to disciplinary sanctions. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 6 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). As long as a prisoner is afforded procedural due process in the 7 disciplinary hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge generally fail to state a claim under section 8 1983. See Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140– 41 (7th Cir. 1984). An exception exists 9 when the fabrication of charges infringed on the inmate's substantive constitutional rights, such as 10 when false charges are made in retaliation for an inmate's exercise of a constitutionally protected 11 right. See Sprouse, 870 F.2d at 452 (holding that filing of a false disciplinary charge in retaliation 12 for a grievance filed by an inmate is actionable under section 1983). 13 IV. Analysis 14 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 15 which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim against 16 defendants based on the issuance of a false disciplinary report. There is no allegation that 17 defendants issued the RVR in retaliation for plaintiff’s prior grievances or other protected conduct 18 or that plaintiff was not afforded due process during the subsequent disciplinary hearing. For all 19 these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff 20 leave to file an amended complaint. 21 V. Leave to Amend 22 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 23 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 24 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in 25 specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. 26 § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the 27 claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 28 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 1 |} Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 2 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 3 || make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 4 || complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 5 || general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 6 || F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 7 || longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 8 | complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 11 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 12 | shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 13 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 14 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 15 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 16 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 17 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 18 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 19 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 20 | be dismissed. 21 | Dated: December 22, 2023 / Lae / a ly. ae 22 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 | 12/brow2487.14 27 28