(PC) Garland v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, No. 2:22-cv-01494-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GENA JONES, Warden, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 20 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A and finds it 26 must be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff purports to bring claims under the Americans 27 with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. He also asserts an equal protection claim 28 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Plaintiff alleges that he is assigned to the “Enhanced Outpatient Program psychiatric level 2 of care” at California Health Care Facility (CHCF). ECF No. 1 at 3, 13. He challenges a prison 3 policy which “allows for [EOP inmates] to be restricted from equally accessing the E-Facility 4 recreational yard.” Plaintiff alleges that non-EOP inmates are provided daily access to the yard. 5 The gravamen of the complaint is that an unspecified policy at CHCF grants non-EOP inmates 6 more access to outdoor recreation than EOP inmates. Plaintiff asserts that this policy violates the 7 ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and his 14th Amendment right to equal protection. ECF No. 1 at 3. 8 With respect to plaintiff’s ADA claim against Warden Jones, there is no individual 9 liability for defendants sued for Title II violations pursuant to section 1983. See Vinson v. 10 Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We therefore join the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh 11 Circuits and hold that a plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a State 12 official in her individual capacity to vindicate rights created by Title II of the ADA or section 504 13 of the Rehabilitation Act.”). Instead, the proper defendant in an ADA action is the public entity 14 responsible for the alleged discrimination. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153 (2006). 15 The term “public entity” includes state prisons. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 16 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). As plaintiff seeks to sue under the ADA but does not name any public 17 entity as a party, he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 18 In addition, to state a claim under the ADA and/or the Rehabilitation Act1, plaintiff must 19 allege: (1) he is an individual with a disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified to participate in or 20 receive the benefit of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, (3) he was either excluded 21 from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity's services, programs, or activities, 22 or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity, and (4) such exclusion, denial of 23 benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability. Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 24 F.3d 1024, 1036 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff has not provided any details about the challenged 25 policy nor alleged that the prison excluded him, denied him benefits, or discriminated against him 26 ///// 27 1 “Title II of the ADA was expressly modeled after [Section] 504 of the Rehabilitation 28 Act.” Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 ‘by reason of’ his disability. For this independent reason, the complaint fails to state a claim 2 under the ADA and/or Rehabilitation Act. 3 Equal protection claims by prisoners are not necessarily limited to racial and religious 4 discrimination. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686-67 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying 5 minimal scrutiny to equal protection claim by a disabled plaintiff because the disabled do not 6 constitute a suspect class). In order to state a § 1983 claim based on a violation of the Equal 7 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that defendants acted 8 with intentional discrimination against plaintiff, or against a class of inmates which included 9 plaintiff, and that such conduct did not relate to a legitimate penological purpose. See Village of 10 Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (holding that equal protection claims may be 11 brought by a “class of one”). Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim under this standard, as he 12 does not allege intentional discrimination, nor that the challenged policy does not relate to a 13 legitimate penological purpose. Therefore, this claim must be dismissed. 14 Leave to Amend 15 The court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and give plaintiff the 16 opportunity submit an amended complaint. 17 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 18 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 19 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (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). Plaintiff may also 22 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 23 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 24 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 26 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 27 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 28 ///// ] Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 2 | without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L-.R. 220. This is because an amended 3 || complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 4 | earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 5 || F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 6 || being treated thereafter as non-existent.””) (guoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 7 || 1967)). 8 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 9 || requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 10 || background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 11 || amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 12 | and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 13 || actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 14 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 15 Conclusion 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 18 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 19 in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 20 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith; 21 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 22 days of service of this order; and 23 4. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 24 action. 25 26 || Dated: December 9, 2022. Eg Vout, 4 a hub Li 27 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28