Goodlett v. Delgado ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Randall GOODLETT, Case No.: 19-cv-1922-AJB-AGS 11 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ 12 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF 9) 13 Ramiro DELGADO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The Court considers defendants’ motion to dismiss parts of an inmate’s civil-rights 17 lawsuit. 18 BACKGROUND 19 While incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, plaintiff Randall Goodlett 20 alleges that a prison guard knocked him unconscious without provocation and that other 21 officers failed to intervene or report this misconduct. (ECF 1, at 3-5.) After transferring to 22 a new prison, Goodlett filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against those guards. (Id. at 1.) 23 Defendants move to dismiss three portions of Goodlett’s complaint: (1) the Fourteenth 24 Amendment substantive-due-process claim; (2) the request for money damages against 25 defendants in their official capacities; and (3) the injunctive-relief claim. 26 DISCUSSION 27 This Court may dismiss a case for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 28 granted.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court’s 1 “inquiry is limited to the allegations in the complaint, which are accepted as true and 2 construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lazy Y Ranch LTD v. Behrens, 546 3 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). If a plaintiff proceeds without an attorney, like Goodlett 4 here, the Court has an obligation “to construe the pleadings liberally” and afford plaintiff 5 “the benefit of any doubt.” Martinez v. Barr, 941 F.3d 907, 916 (9th Cir. 2019). 6 A. Fourteenth Amendment Due-Process Claim 7 Defendants move to dismiss Goodlett’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim, 8 arguing that it is duplicative of his allegations of “excessive force and failure to intervene 9 under the Eighth Amendment.”1 (ECF 9, at 4.) When a specific constitutional Amendment 10 “provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of 11 government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive 12 due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 13 266, 273 (1994) (plurality) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, any “protection that 14 ‘substantive due process’ affords convicted prisoners against excessive force is . . . at best 15 redundant of that provided by the Eighth Amendment.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 16 395 n.10 (1986). 17 Goodlett alleges that some defendants used excessive force against him, while others 18 failed to intervene or report his abuse. (ECF 1, at 4.) Such claims fall squarely within the 19 Eighth Amendment’s explicit protections, as that Amendment “is specifically concerned 20 with the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain in penal institutions.” Whitley v. Albers, 21 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986). As a result, Goodlett’s due-process “claim is preempted by the 22 23 24 1 This Court interprets Goodlett’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment cause of action 25 (Count 3) as a claim under the Eighth Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962) (applying “cruel and 26 unusual punishment” protection to state action through Fourteenth Amendment). 27 Defendants identify Count 2 (“Civil misconduct right to due process”) as the offending Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim. (See ECF 1, at 4; ECF 9, at 4.) The Court’s 28 1 Eighth Amendment and should not be analyzed as a substantive due process claim under 2 the Fourteenth Amendment.” See Easter v. CDC, 694 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1187 (S.D. Cal. 3 2010). 4 B. Claim for Damages in Defendants’ Official Capacities 5 Defendants also move to dismiss Goodlett’s claims for damages against them in their 6 official capacities. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal 7 court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities,” 8 unless the state consents. See Aholelei v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 9 (9th Cir. 2007). Although Congress may revoke this state immunity, “Congress, in passing 10 § 1983, had no intention to disturb the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Will v. 11 Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). Thus, state prison guards “acting in 12 their official capacities cannot be sued for damages under Section 1983,” and defendants’ 13 motion to dismiss this part of the complaint should be granted. See Goldstein v. City of 14 Long Beach, 715 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2013). 15 C. Injunctive Relief 16 Finally, defendants move to dismiss Goodlett’s request for an injunction as moot. A 17 prisoner’s injunctive-relief claim is rendered moot once the inmate is transferred to a new 18 prison with “no reasonable expectation of returning.” Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 19 (9th Cir. 1991). Goodlett, who currently resides at Kern Valley State Prison, asks this Court 20 to enjoin correctional officers employed at his past prison, R.J. Donovan. (See ECF 1, at 1- 21 2, 8; ECF 5; ECF 9, at 5.) Yet Goodlett never mentions the possibility of returning to 22 Donovan at all, let alone a “reasonable expectation of returning.” See id. Thus, his request 23 for injunctive relief is moot and should be dismissed.2 24 25 2 Even if this claim were not moot, the Court likely lacks the power to grant the 26 requested relief. A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction “must satisfy a four-factor 27 test,” which includes showing “irreparable injury.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). A prison-conditions injunction must also pass the Prison 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 This Court recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED and that 3 || the following portions of Goodlett’s complaint be dismissed: 4 1. Count 2, to the extent it alleges a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim— 5 DISMISSED with prejudice; 6 2. Request for damages against defendants in their official capacities— 7 DISMISSED with prejudice; and 8 3. Injunctive-relief request:—DISMISSED. 9 Within 14 days of service of this report, the parties must file any objections to it. See 10 ||28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The party receiving such an objection has 14 days to file any 11 ||response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 12 Dated: August 5, 2020 13 7 | 14 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 0g Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2010); see 18 USC. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Goodlett’s injunctive-relief claim would not seem to survive either inquiry.