(PC) King v. Lynch ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KURTIS KING, No. 2:22-cv-01696-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFFREY LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 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 without leave to amend. Plaintiff purports to bring a claim “seeking higher 27 wages” for himself “and all prison workers.” He alleges that defendants “have failed to pay 28 inmate workers sufficient wages such [as] $10.00 - $ 15.00 an hour [ ] in order for inmates to 1 survive better in prison, due to the expensive canteen and store package prices.” ECF No. 1 at 3. 2 He claims this is a deprivation of life’s basic necessities. Id. 3 Plaintiff’s claim cannot survive screening and should be dismissed without leave to amend 4 because “[n]either Due Process in the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Eighth Amendment protect 5 wages for a prisoner’s prison job.” Montecastro v. Newsome, No. 1:19-cv-01065-NONE-BAM 6 (PC), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57320, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2021). In Rhodes v. Chapman, 7 452 U.S. 337 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court held that depriving inmates of job opportunities 8 “simply [is] not [a] punishment[ ],” and thus, does not violate the Eighth Amendment. And in 9 Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit stated that “the Due Process 10 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a property or liberty interest in prison 11 employment[.]” Walker, 370 F.3d 969 at 973 (internal quotations omitted). It follows that if an 12 inmate has no constitutionally protected interest in prison employment, “he has no 13 constitutionally protected interest in any benefit that may stem from [that employment.]” See 14 Montecastro, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57320, at *8-9 (summarizing numerous court opinions 15 concurring that there is no constitutionally protected right to prison pay). For these reasons, this 16 action should be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief 17 could be granted. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009); Silva v. Di 18 Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 19 amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 20 cured by amendment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 21 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend 22 the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation 23 of other facts.”). 24 Conclusion 25 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 2 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 3 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 4 3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 5 action. 6 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim 7 || upon which relief could be granted. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 13 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 14 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 15 16 || Dated: December 9, 2022. □□ PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28