(PC) Gulbronson v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC CONRAD GULBRONSON, No. 2:21-cv-01296-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GENA JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local 19 Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On December 6, 2021, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave 21 to amend. ECF No. 12. The court provided plaintiff with the relevant legal standards governing 22 his potential claims for relief. ECF No. 12 at 3-9. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is now 23 before the court for screening. ECF No. 15. 24 As plaintiff was previously advised, the court is required to screen complaints brought by 25 prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 26 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 27 prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 28 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 1 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 2 I. Allegations in the Amended Complaint 3 At all times relevant to the allegations in the first amended complaint, plaintiff was a 4 prisoner at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). In claim one, plaintiff alleges that 5 on May 20, 2020, defendants Lujan and Jora allowed a violent prisoner to gain access to a chain 6 that he used to shatter plaintiff’s cell window causing an injury to plaintiff’s left eye. ECF No. 15 7 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that this was done in deliberate indifference to his Eighth Amendment right 8 to safety. In claim two, plaintiff alleges that these same defendants violated his First Amendment 9 right of access to the courts by throwing away his inmate grievance about this incident. ECF No. 10 15 at 4. In his last claim for relief, plaintiff challenges a separate search that was conducted on 11 October 13, 2020 by defendant Leatherman. ECF No. 15 at 5. Plaintiff alleges that defendant 12 Leatherman touched his genitals and groin area both outside and inside of plaintiff’s clothing 13 while he was restrained in mechanical restraints. ECF No. 15 at 5. Because this search was 14 conducted after he had already been strip searched, plaintiff alleges that it constituted a sexual 15 battery. ECF No. 15 at 5. Defendant Leatherman then threatened to pepper spray plaintiff before 16 placing him in a special management cell without access to any property, writing supplies, 17 bedding or clothing for approximately three months. Id. 18 II. Analysis 19 After conducting the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on the 20 Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Lujan and Jora for being deliberately indifferent to 21 his safety. However, plaintiff does not state a valid First Amendment denial of access to the 22 courts claim against defendants Lujan and Jora. The allegations fail to demonstrate that plaintiff 23 suffered an actual injury with respect to any court case as demonstrated by his filing of the 24 present civil action. To the extent that plaintiff alleges that these defendants prevented him from 25 exhausting his administrative remedies, that is not an actual injury to any contemplated or 26 existing litigation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). The right of access to the 27 courts is limited to nonfrivolous legal claims such as direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus 28 proceedings, and § 1983 actions. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 n. 3 and 354–355; see also Phillips 1 v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009) (to succeed on denial of access claim, a plaintiff must 2 show that official acts or omissions hindered efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim). 3 The allegations in claim three against defendant Leatherman do not arise from the same 4 transaction or occurrence as those against defendants Lujan and Jora. Nor do they involve a 5 common question of law or fact because they are based on different constitutional violations that 6 occurred on different dates. As a result, the allegations against defendant Leatherman are 7 improperly joined to the present civil action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The unrelated claims 8 against defendant Leatherman must be pursued in a separate civil action. 9 Based on these deficiencies in the remaining claims, plaintiff will be granted leave to file 10 a second amended complaint should he decide that he does not want to immediately proceed on 11 the Eighth Amendment claim found cognizable against defendants Lujan and Jora in this 12 screening order. 13 III. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 14 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 15 intended as legal advice. 16 Some of the allegations in the amended complaint state claims for relief against the 17 defendants, and some do not. You must decide if you want to (1) proceed immediately on the 18 Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Lujan and Jora; or, (2) amend the complaint to fix 19 the problems identified in this order with respect to the remaining claims and defendants. Once 20 you decide, you must complete the attached Notice of Election form by checking only one box 21 and returning it to the court. 22 Once the court receives the Notice of Election, it will issue an order telling you what you 23 need to do next. If you do not return this Notice, the court will construe this failure as consent to 24 dismiss the deficient claims and will order service of the complaint only on the claim found 25 cognizable in this screening order. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on the Eighth Amendment claim 28 against defendants Lujan and Jora presented in claim one of the first amended complaint. ] 2. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 2 attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the 3 claims found cognizable in this screening order or whether he wants time to file a second 4 amended complaint. 5 3. If plaintiff fails to return the attached Notice of Election within the time provided, the 6 court will construe this failure as consent to dismiss the deficient claims and proceed only 7 on the cognizable claims identified in this screening order. 8 | Dated: May 11, 2022 / hice ANKE) flo ° CAROLYN K DELANEY? 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 || 12/gulb1296.option.docx 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERIC CONRAD GULBRONSON, No. 2:21-cv-02196-CKD 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 13 GENA JONES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Check only one option: 16 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on the Eighth Amendment claim against 17 defendants Lujan and Jora. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the remaining claims and defendants. 18 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file a second amended complaint. 19 20 21 22 23 DATED: 24 25 ____________________ 26 Plaintiff 27 28