(PC) Young v. Lynch ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JOSEPH YOUNG, No. 2:22-cv-0487 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al.. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 §1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set 19 forth below, this court finds plaintiff has stated some claims, and gives plaintiff an opportunity to 20 either file an amended complaint or proceed on the cognizable claims in her first amended 21 complaint. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento. She complains of conduct 24 that occurred there in 2019. On screening plaintiff’s original complaint, this court found: (1) 25 plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Correctional 26 Officers M. Sotelo, D. Giardino, and R. Bell; (2) plaintiff stated a cognizable claim that defendant 27 Giardino was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 28 Amendment; and (3) plaintiff failed to state claims against defendants Warden Lynch or 1 Correctional Sergeant Doe. This court permitted plaintiff to choose to proceed on her cognizable 2 claims or file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff chose to file a first amended complaint. 3 SCREENING 4 As described in this court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen complaints 5 brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim 7 in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In 8 addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the 9 deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “A person 10 ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he 11 does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which 12 he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. 13 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 14 In the first amended complaint, plaintiff again adequately alleges claims against Correctional 15 Officers M. Sotelo, D. Giardino, and R. Bell for excessive force and against Giardino for 16 deliberate indifference to her medical needs. Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on these 17 Eighth Amendment claims. 18 With respect to defendant Doe, plaintiff alleges Doe witnessed the excessive force incident 19 but failed to follow protocol by documenting the excessive force. This failure permitted the other 20 defendants to file false reports regarding the incident, resulting in an extension of plaintiff’s time 21 in segregation. These allegations do not state a claim under § 1983. Plaintiff has no 22 constitutional right to have an officer follow prison protocols or report the conduct of other 23 officers. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir.2009) (alleged failure to follow 24 prison policy does not establish federal constitutional violation). Further, to the extent plaintiff 25 alleges Doe intentionally aided in the filing of false reports, as plaintiff was informed in this 26 court’s prior screening order, the falsification of a disciplinary report does not state a stand-alone 27 constitutional claim. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (no right to be 28 free of false charges); Luster v. Amezcua, No. 1:16-cv-0554-DAD-GSA-PC, 2017 WL 772141, at 1 *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017). Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Doe will be dismissed. 2 Plaintiff next alleges she told defendants Sotelo, Giardino, and Bell she intended to file 3 grievances against them for excessive force. In retaliation, they conspired to provide false 4 information, and did provide false information, for a disciplinary action against plaintiff. These 5 allegations are sufficient to state a claim that defendants Sotelo, Giardino, and Bell retaliated 6 against plaintiff in violation of her First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 7 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted); see also Nyland v. Calaveras Cty. Sheriff’s Jail, 8 688 F. App’x 483, 485 (9th Cir. 2017). 9 Finally, plaintiff contends defendant Lynch denied plaintiff’s grievances regarding the 10 actions of the other defendants. As a result, those other defendants were not disciplined and 11 plaintiff was prejudiced in “seeking justice against them.” Plaintiff fails to state claims against 12 Lynch under § 1983 for several reasons. First, prison officials are not required under federal law 13 to process inmate grievances in a specific way or to respond to them in a favorable manner. It is 14 well established that “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison 15 grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. 16 Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Second, plaintiff fails to show he has a constitutional 17 right to have an officer disciplined, and this court is aware of no such right. Third, plaintiff fails 18 to show Lynch intentionally prevented her from “seeking justice” and that she has, in fact, been 19 denied the right to pursue claims against the other defendants. 20 CONCLUSION 21 This court finds above that plaintiff has stated the following cognizable claims: (1) Eighth 22 Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell; (2) an Eighth 23 Amendment medical claim against defendant Giardino; and (3) First Amendment retaliation 24 claims against Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell. This court further finds that plaintiff has failed to state 25 any other claims. 26 Plaintiff has a choice. She may proceed on her Eighth and First Amendment claims against 27 Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell or she may amend the first amended complaint to attempt to also state 28 other claims. Plaintiff is advised, however, that his court finds it very unlikely she will be able to 1 | state claims against defendants Doe or Lynch. On the facts plaintiff has presented, this court is 2 | unable to discern any potential constitutional claims against either defendant. That said, this 3 | court will give plaintiff one final opportunity to attempt to state claims against those defendants, 4 | if she wishes. 5 In the prior screening order, this court set out the standards for filing an amended complaint. 6 | They will not be restated here. Plaintiff is reminded that in any amended complaint she must 7 | include all claims she wishes to proceed on in this action and must allege facts showing just how 8 | each defendant violated her constitutional rights. 9 For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 10 follows: 11 1. Plaintiff has stated Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Giardino, Sotelo, 12 and Bell for excessive force; an Eighth Amendment medical claim against Giardino; and First 13 Amendment retaliation claims against Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell. 14 2. Plaintiffs claims against Lynch and Doe are dismissed with leave to amend. 15 3. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on her cognizable claims set out above or she may 16 choose to amend her first amended complaint. 17 4. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 18 attached form indicating how she would like to proceed. 19 5. Plaintiff is warned that her failure to comply with this order may result in a 20 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 21 | Dated: July 6, 2022 23 A .B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 || DLB:9/DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/youn0487.FAC scrn Ita or proceed 28 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 DANIEL JOSEPH YOUNG, No. 2:22-cv-0487 DB P 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO PROCEED 12 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Check one: 15 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on her Eight Amendment excessive force claims 16 against defendants Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell, her Eighth Amendment medical claim 17 against defendant Giardino, and her First Amendment retaliation claims against 18 defendants Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell. Plaintiff understands that by going forward 19 without amending the complaint she is voluntarily dismissing all other claims. 20 21 ____ Plaintiff wants to amend the first amended complaint. 22 23 DATED:______________________ 24 25 26 ____________________________________ 27 Plaintiff Daniel Joseph Young, Pro Se 28