(PC) Reid v. Allison ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLTON L. REID, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01437 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. THIS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 C. ALLISON, et al., COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 22) 16 17 Carlton L. Reid seeks to hold the defendants—including Kathleen Allison1, Secretary of 18 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and Theresa Cisneros, Warden of 19 C/SATF— liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends the 20 defendants violated his civil rights by taking his JPay tablet after the CDCR ended the pilot JPay 21 program. (See generally Doc. 21.) Plaintiff seeks the return of his JPay tablets and $1,000.00 in 22 damages. (Id. at 5.) In the alternative, if Plaintiff’s JPay tablets cannot be returned, Plaintiff 23 requests compensatory damages and punitive damages. (Id.) 24 The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. § 191A(a). (Doc. 22.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s claim against Allison 26 “necessarily fails” under the Eleventh Amendment, because Plaintiff “only named Allison in her 27 official capacity, yet seeks monetary damages.” (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge then turned to 1 the claims as stated against Cisneros and found Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting a claim 2 for a violation of his civil rights. (Id. at 5-9.) Because Plaintiff was previously granted leave to 3 amend and failed to cure the pleading deficiencies, the magistrate judge determined further leave 4 to amend would be futile. (Id. at 9.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the First 5 Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id.) 6 Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, arguing the magistrate 7 judge erred in finding he did not state a claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 8 because he had a property interest in the JPay tablets. (Doc. 23 at 2-3.) Plaintiff also contends 9 that “it is clear that CDCR is in violation of the administrative regulations set in place under CCR 10 Title 15, 3191(c) and the Department Operations Manual (sic) … 12010.7(d). (Id. at 2.) 11 As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not challenge the magistrate judge’s 12 findings that he is unable to state a claim against Allison, because he sought monetary damages. 13 (See generally Doc. 23.) However, the magistrate judge failed to acknowledge that Plaintiff also 14 seeks non-monetary relief with the request for return of his tablets. (See Doc. 21 at 5.) Plaintiff’s 15 claim for non-monetary damages is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Mich. 16 Dep’t. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, n.10 (1989); see also Chambers v. Dela Cruz, 2020 WL 17 3971606, at *6 (D. Nev. July 14, 2020) (denying a motion to dismiss claims against individuals in 18 their official capacities where the plaintiff requested “injunctive relief with respect to return of his 19 property.”) Thus, to the extent that the magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s claim against Allison 20 was barred in its entirety by the Eleventh Amendment because he sought monetary damages, the 21 Court declines to adopt the finding. 22 Nevertheless, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support his claims. Violations of 23 the identified California regulations and the Department Operations Manual are insufficient to 24 establish a claim under Section 1983. See, e.g., Herrera v. Cal. State Superior Courts, 2018 WL 25 400320, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2018) (“The violation of state regulations, rules and policies of 26 the CDCR, or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983.”); Gray v. 27 Lewis, 2017 WL 2311684, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) (explaining there is not “a 1 | of state regulations and prison policies “cannot form the basis of a viable section 1983 claim”) 2 Finally, as the magistrate judge determined, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right 3 | to possess a JPay tablet. See, e.g., Atencio v. Allison, 2021 WL 2982917, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 4 | 2021) (“Plaintiff cannot allege a fundamental right to a particular type of electronic device”’) 5 | adopted by 2021 WL 4803970 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021); Cerniglia v. Price, 2017 WL 4865452, 6 | at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2021) (“No Court has found that prisoners have a constitutional right 7 | to possess personal computers or items that are similar to personal computers...”). Consequently, 8 | Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support a conclusion that he suffered a violation of his 9 | constitutional rights. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this Court conducted a de novo 10 || review of this case. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 11, 2024 (Doc. 22) are 12 ADOPTED in part. 13 2. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend for Plaintiffs failure to state a 14 claim upon which relief can be granted. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _February 9, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28