(PC) Leonard v. CSP-Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON THOR LEONARD, No. 2:23-CV-0601-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON – SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See ECF No. 8. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was 23 initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. 24 Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or 25 portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can 26 be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that 28 complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 1 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, 2 concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice 4 of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 5 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 6 overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail 7 to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening 8 required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory. 9 10 I. BACKGROUND 11 A. Procedural History 12 Plaintiff initiated this action while in custody by filing a pro se complaint on 13 March 30, 2023. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff named the following as defendants: (1) California 14 State Prison – Sacramento (CSP-Sac.); and (2) Best, a correctional officer CSP-Sac. See ECF 15 No. 1, pg. 1. Plaintiff alleged as follows: 16 On 4-1-2021 at 8:48 pm Correctional Officer Best #91082, purposely withheld my mail which included a letter from the IRS 17 regarding Covid relief economic funds. Correctional Officer Best #91082 was very disrespectful to me during dinner tray pass out at around 4:55 pm 18 on 4-1-2021. Correctional Officer Best withheld my mail as a form of reprisal. There is video of C.O. Best refusing to give me my mail between 19 8:30 pm and 8:55 pm on 4-1-2021. 20 ECF No. 1, pg. 3. 21 On August 15, 2023, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s original complaint stated 22 a cognizable claim against Defendant Best based on interference with Plaintiff’s mail. See ECF 23 No. 7. The Court concluded, however, that Plaintiff failed to state any claim against Defendant 24 Best based on alleged “reprisal” and that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant CSP-Sac. fails 25 because the prison is immune under the Eleventh Amendment. See id. Plaintiff was provided an 26 opportunity to amend and filed the operative first amended complaint on September 21, 2023. 27 See ECF No. 8. 28 / / / 1 B. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 2 As with the original complaint, Plaintiff, who has been released on parole since 3 initiating this action, continues to name CSP-Sac. and Best as defendants. See ECF No. 8, pg. 1. 4 Plaintiff newly alleges that Defendant Best denied him Kosher meals on April 1, 2021. See id. at 5 2. Plaintiff alleges this deprived him of religious accommodation. See id. Next, Plaintiff renews 6 the allegation in the original complaint that Defendant Best withheld a letter to Plaintiff from the 7 Internal Revenue Service. See id. Finally, Plaintiff renews his claim that Defendant Best acted to 8 retaliate against him. See id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Best retaliated against 9 Plaintiff in order to punish him and “deter [Plaintiff] from engaging in constitutionally protected 10 activities.” Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages only. See id. at 5. 11 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s renewed claim against Defendant Best based on 14 interference with Plaintiff’s mail on April 1, 2021, is cognizable. The Court also finds that 15 Plaintiff’s new claim that Defendant Best denied him Kosher meals on April 1, 2021, is also 16 cognizable. Both appear to state claims based on violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the First 17 Amendment to free speech and free exercise of religion. By separate order, the Court will direct 18 service of process on Defendant Best as to these two claims. 19 Plaintiff’s claim against CSP-Sac. cannot proceed because, as previously 20 explained, the prison is immune under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim also 21 remains deficient because Plaintiff continues to fail to allege facts showing that Defendant Best 22 acted because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity. The Court now recommends that CSP-Sac. 23 be dismissed as a defendant, that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim be dismissed, and that this action 24 proceed on the first amended complaint as to Plaintiff’s free speech and free exercise claims only. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 2 The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought 3 against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v. 4 Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition 5 extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t 6 of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 7 Cir. 1989). A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a state 8 agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 9 (1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). 10 Plaintiff names CSP-Sac. as a defendant to this action. This institution is an arm 11 of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and, as such, is immune from suit 12 under the Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed with prejudice. 13 B. Retaliation 14 In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation, the prisoner must 15 establish that he was retaliated against for exercising a constitutional right, and that the retaliatory 16 action was not related to a legitimate penological purpose, such as preserving institutional 17 security. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). In meeting 18 this standard, the prisoner must demonstrate a specific link between the alleged retaliation and the 19 exercise of a constitutional right. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995); 20 Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 1989). The prisoner must also 21 show that the exercise of First Amendment rights was chilled, though not necessarily silenced, by 22 the alleged retaliatory conduct. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000), see also 23 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 569 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the prisoner plaintiff must 24 establish the following in order to state a claim for retaliation: (1) prison officials took adverse 25 action against the inmate; (2) the adverse action was taken because the inmate engaged in 26 protected conduct; (3) the adverse action chilled the inmate’s First Amendment rights; and (4) the 27 adverse action did not serve a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568. 28 / / / 1 Here, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Best intercepted his mail and denied Kosher 2 meals in order to punish Plaintiff and chill Plaintiff from exercising his constitutional rights in the 3 future. As with the original complaint, Plaintiff still has not alleged any facts to show that 4 Defendant Best’s conduct was due to Plaintiff having engaged in a protected activity of which 5 Defendant Best was aware before the events of April 1, 2021. Given the Court’s prior order 6 advising Plaintiff of this defect and the applicable legal standards and given Plaintiff’s continued 7 failure to plead sufficient facts to establish a retaliation claim against Defendant Best, the Court 8 finds that further amendment would be futile. 9 / / / 10 / / / 11 / / / 12 / / / 13 / / / 14 / / / 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 3 || cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 4 || the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows: 6 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as to his First 7 || Amendment claims against Defendant Best arising from denial of Kosher meals and interference 8 | with mail on April 1, 2021 9 2. California State Prison — Sacramento be dismissed with prejudice as an 10 || immune defendant. 11 3. Plaintiff's retaliation claim be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a 12 | claim upon which relief can be granted. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 15 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 17 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 18 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 || Dated: May 22, 2024 Co 21 DENNIS M. COTA 02 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28