(PC) Hill v. Seibel ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:21-cv-2382 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KIMBERLY SEIBEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se. Before the court is plaintiff’s second 18 amended complaint (“SAC”) for screening. For the reasons set forth below, this court will 19 recommend the SAC be dismissed without leave to amend. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff is housed at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). On screening 22 plaintiff’s complaint and first amended complaint, this court was unable to discern any cognizable 23 claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In dismissing those complaints with leave to amend, 24 this court provided plaintiff with the standards for the constitutional claims he appeared to be 25 attempting to make and with instructions for preparing an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now 26 filed an SAC. 27 //// 28 //// 1 SCREENING 2 As described in this court’s prior screening orders, the court is required to screen 3 complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 4 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual 5 basis for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 6 (9th Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 7 defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 8 (1978). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 9 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or 10 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 11 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 12 Plaintiff identifies four defendants: Psychologist Kimberly Seibel, Counselor Jennifer 13 Weaver, Officer A. Scotland, and Psychologist Dr. Suziqui. Plaintiff alleges that in June 2022, he 14 told each defendant he was suicidal and each defendant failed to provide him any treatment. For 15 relief, plaintiff requests a “federal indictment against members of the green wall.” 16 As plaintiff was informed previously, to allege a claim that a defendant’s conduct violated 17 his right to medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment, he must state facts showing, among 18 other things, that he suffered harm as a result of that defendant’s conduct. See Gordon v. Cnty. of 19 Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1120, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff alleges that he was “trapped” in 20 a cell “to harm himself.” While plaintiff alleges conduct that appears to have caused him distress, 21 and this court is certainly sympathetic to his distress, plaintiff does not show that he suffered 22 harm sufficient to satisfy the standards for a civil rights claim. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(e) (“No Federal 23 civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, 24 for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical 25 injury or the commission of a sexual act.”); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 Further, this court notes that plaintiff’s requested relief – a federal indictment – is not available in 27 a § 1983 action. 28 //// 1 Plaintiff again fails to state any cognizable claims for relief. Even with direction from the 2 | court, plaintiff has been unable to describe conduct by any of the four defendants that, if true, 3 | violated his constitutional rights. This court finds that it would be futile to give plaintiff another 4 | opportunity to attempt to state a claim. 5 Accordingly, IT Is HEREBY RECOMMENDED! that this action be dismissed for □□□□□□□□□□ 6 | failure to state a claim for relief. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within thirty days after 9 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 10 | the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 11 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 12 | may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 13 } 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: July 20, 2022 15 16 17 BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 | DLB:9 DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/hil12382.SAC scrn fr 21 22 23 24 | ———_ ' Plaintiff made notations on his complaint that he was “rejecting” the “offer” for “subject matter 25 Jurisdiction” or “to contract.” This court is unable to interpret these notations. Based on 26 | Plaintiff's attachment of this court’s prior screening order, it is possible plaintiff objects to the authority of the undersigned magistrate judge. If that is plaintiff's concern, plaintiff advised 27 | that the undersigned is not entering a final order in this case. Rather, the undersigned is recommending to Chief District Judge Mueller that plaintiff's case be dismissed. As stated in the 28 | body of this document, plaintiff has the right to file objections to the recommendation.