(PC) Collins v. Marfil ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY LEE COLLINS, No. 2:24-cv-01091-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. MARFIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States 20 Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 21 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 22 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 24 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 25 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 26 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 27 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 28 ///// 1 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 2 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 3 I. Screening Requirement 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 16 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 17 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 18 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 19 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 20 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 21 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 22 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 23 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 25 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 26 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 27 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 28 ///// 1 II. Allegations in the Complaint 2 At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff was an inmate at New 3 Folsom State Prison. Plaintiff sues four named correctional officers at the prison. According to 4 the complaint, defendant Marfil changed plaintiff’s PIN number on the TDD-TTY system that 5 plaintiff uses to contact his family members. Plaintiff indicates the new PIN number that 6 defendant Marfil gave him. Plaintiff attached the registration and calling instructions for using 7 the Connect Network to place telephone calls and use the tablets provided by the prison. ECF 8 No. 1 at 10-11. Also attached to the complaint is the response from the Reasonable 9 Accommodation Panel regarding plaintiff’s request for instructions on how to use the caption 10 phone. ECF No. 1 at 12. This response indicates that plaintiff was provided an orientation on 11 how to use the caption phone. ECF No. 1 at 12. 12 III. Analysis 13 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 14 which relief can be granted under federal law. There are no allegations against any defendant that 15 establish a violation of the American with Disabilities Act because plaintiff was provided with a 16 new PIN number as well as an orientation on how to use the caption phone to be able to contact 17 his family. Therefore, he was not denied access to any services, programs, or activities based on 18 his disability. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to 19 file an amended complaint. 20 IV. Legal Standards Governing Amended Complaint 21 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 22 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 23 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in 24 specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the 26 claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 27 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 28 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 1 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 2 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 3 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 4 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 5 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 6 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 7 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 8 Finally, the court provides plaintiff with the legal standards which may apply to his 9 potential claims for relief. 10 A. Linkage Requirement 11 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 12 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 13 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 14 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 15 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 16 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 17 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 18 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 19 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 20 plaintiff's federal rights. 21 B. ADA 22 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “prohibit[s] discrimination on the 23 basis of disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Title II of the 24 ADA applies to inmates within state prisons. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 25 U.S. 206, 208 (1998). “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that 26 (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or 27 otherwise discriminated against with regard to a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; 28 and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.” Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1 }} 1052. “To recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove 2 || intentional discrimination on the part of the defendant,” and the standard for intentional 3 | discrimination is deliberate indifference. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th 4 Cir. 2001). 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiffs motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 8) are granted. 7 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 8 | shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 9 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 10 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 11 4. Plaintiff □□ granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 12 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 13 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 14 | number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 15 5. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a 16 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. 17 | Dated: September 12, 2024 / ae □□ / a Ly a 18 CAROLYN K DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 12/coll1091.14 24 25 26 27 28