(PC) Hazeltine v. Tuolumne County, et al, No. 1:2004cv06712 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER VACATING 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 2/24/2010. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hazeltine v. Tuolumne County, et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICK A. HAZELTINE, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06712-LJO-YNP PC Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING RECOMMENDATION FINDINGS AND v. (Doc. 11) 12 TOULUMNE COUNTY SUPERVISORS, et al., BOARD OF 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Rick A. Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently housed at 18 Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California. However, Plaintiff’s complaint concerns events that 19 occurred when Plaintiff was housed in Tuolumne County Jail. 20 On May 21, 2009, a findings and recommendation was entered recommending that this action 21 be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. #11.) Plaintiff filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendation on June 10, 2009. (Doc. #13.) A pro se litigant 23 bringing a civil rights suit in forma pauperis is entitled to have an opportunity to amend his 24 complaint and cure any deficiencies in it before his/her lawsuit is dismissed, unless it is clear that 25 the deficiencies cannot be overcome by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (1987). 26 Here, Plaintiff was given one opportunity to amend his complaint. On May 24, 2005, the 27 Court screened the original complaint in this action. (Doc. #4.) Plaintiff was told that he failed to 28 allege specific facts that linked each individual Defendant to any specific conduct. (Order 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend 2:14-15.) Plaintiff was also told that his complaint was 2 vague, conclusory, and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)’s requirement 3 that he provide a “short and plain” statement of his claim. 4 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2005. (Doc. #6.) The Court’s May 21, 5 2009 findings and recommendation followed. In the findings and recommendation, the Court found 6 that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under section 1983. However, the Court failed to provide 7 Plaintiff with any detailed information regarding the substantive deficiencies in his claims. 8 Upon review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Court finds that any deficiencies in the 9 amended complaint may be cured by further leave to amend. Specifically, neither the Court’s first 10 screening order nor the findings and recommendation specifically address Plaintiff’s allegations that 11 he was physically assaulted by Defendants Carroll, Giannini and Lackey. (First Am. Compl. 4:22- 12 5:22.) Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Tuolumne County Jail’s 13 unhygienic conditions, the periods in administrative segregation, the lack of exercise, being forced 14 to live in a cell with lights illuminated 24/7, being unable to exercise his religion, and other 15 miscellaneous allegations may be sufficient to state a claim under section 1983 if given the proper 16 legal standards and further leave to amend. 17 The Court notes that Plaintiff has again failed to provide detailed allegations regarding any 18 individual Defendant’s specific conduct. Other than Plaintiff’s relatively vague and undetailed 19 allegation that Defendants Carroll, Giannini and Lackey physically assaulted him, Plaintiff’s 20 complaint largely consists of allegations about how the conditions at Tuolumne County Jail 21 amounted to punitive conditions in violation of the Constitution. Plaintiff attributes the conditions 22 collectively to Defendants without providing specific and individualized allegations about what each 23 Defendant did or failed to do to cause the alleged conditions. However, to the extent that Plaintiff’s 24 failure to provide individualized allegations about how each Defendant caused the conditions 25 complained of is fatal to his section 1983 claims, Plaintiff may be able to cure those deficiencies if 26 Plaintiff is provided with further leave to amend and more specific instructions regarding the 27 deficiencies in his complaint and the relevant legal standards. Therefore, it is inappropriate at this 28 time to dismiss this action. 2 1 The Court will vacate its findings and recommendation recommending dismissal. Plaintiff’s 2 amended complaint will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A at a later date. If the Court 3 determines that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claims, the Court will provide 4 Plaintiff with leave to amend and the appropriate legal standards for stating a claim. 5 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s May 21, 2009 findings and recommendation is VACATED. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: icido3 February 24, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
