Work v. Humboldt County Correctional Facility ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JIMMIE DON WORK, Case No. 24-cv-00102-RMI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND 10 HUMBOLDT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Standard of Review 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 20 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 21 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 22 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 26 statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 27 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 1 cause of action and state conclusions; rather a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 2 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 3 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 4 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court recently explained this standard: “[w]hile 5 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 6 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 7 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 10 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 11 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 12 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 Legal Claims 14 Plaintiff alleges jail officials retaliated again him for protected conduct, violated his due 15 process rights and detained him in unsanitary conditions. It appears Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. 16 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 17 elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 18 because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s 19 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 20 correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). 21 Accord Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoner suing prison officials under 22 § 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional 23 rights and that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate penological goals, such as 24 preserving institutional order and discipline). The prisoner must show that the type of activity he 25 was engaged in was constitutionally protected, that the protected conduct was a substantial or 26 motivating factor for the alleged retaliatory action, and that the retaliatory action advanced no 27 legitimate penological interest. Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267-68 (9th Cir. 1997) (inferring 1 When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement, the proper inquiry is 2 whether the conditions amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 3 Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). “‘[T]he State does not 4 acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has 5 secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Where the State 6 seeks to impose punishment without such an adjudication, the pertinent guarantee is the Due 7 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’” Id. (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 8 671-72 n.40 (1977)). Unsanitary conditions can, when severe enough, violate the Fourteenth 9 Amendment rights of pretrial detainees by rising to the level of punishment. Shorter v. Baca, 895 10 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2018). 11 A court presented with a procedural due process claim by a pretrial detainee should first 12 ask if the alleged deprivation amounts to punishment and therefore implicates the Due Process 13 Clause itself; if so, the court then must determine what process is due. See, e.g., Bell, 441 U.S. at 14 537-38 (discussing tests traditionally applied to determine whether governmental acts are punitive 15 in nature). Disciplinary segregation as punishment for violation of jail rules and regulations, for 16 example, cannot be imposed without due process, i.e., without complying with the procedural 17 requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 18 523-26 (9th Cir. 1996). 19 Plaintiff states that in his jail unit, defendants served Jell-O instead of ice cream that is 20 normally served, because workers could not find the ice cream. The other units in the jail received 21 ice cream. Plaintiff would not accept the Jell-O and told others that they should also not accept the 22 Jello-O. The rest of Plaintiff’s jail unit refused the Jell-O, and ice cream was eventually found and 23 provided. Plaintiff states that there was no riot, and no detainees became violent or threatened 24 anybody. The next morning plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation, without any 25 disciplinary hearing, for eleven days. The cell was prone to flooding and he was forced to sleep in 26 a chair due to ants on the floor and on his bunk. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 27 The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information. Plaintiff 1 defendants in the caption, he fails to identify any specific defendant in the body of the complaint. 2 || Plaintiff must identify individual defendants and specifically describe how they violated his 3 || constitutional rights. Plaintiff must also describe how demanding different food from defendants 4 rises to the level of protected conduct to state a claim of retaliation. Finally, Plaintiff states that he 5 || did not complete the inmate grievance process before filing this suit. Plaintiff is advised to 6 || complete the grievance process before the jail time limit expires or this case could later be 7 dismissed as unexhausted. 8 CONCLUSION 9 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards 10 set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date 11 this order is filed, and it must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 12 || words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 5 13 replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See 14 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material 3 15 from the original Complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result a 16 |] in dismissal of this case. 3 17 2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 18 || informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk, headered “Notice of 19 || Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 20 || may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 41(b). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: February 14, 2024 24 Mt Z 7 25 26 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 27 28