(PC)Maldonado v. Trimble et al, No. 1:2012cv01088 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; this dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28:1915(g) re 21 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 04/11/2016. (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BILLY RAE MALDONADO, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. 1:12-cv-01088-AWI-EPG-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 21.) PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN et al., THIRTY DAYS Defendants. 15 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff Billy Rae Maldonado (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an 19 original Complaint commencing this action on July 5, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court1 20 previously found on a screening order that Plaintiff failed to state a claim and gave Plaintiff 21 leave to amend. 22 Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint claims that correctional officer defendant Ramirez 23 grabbed Plaintiff s buttocks and then felt Plaintiff s scrotum during a pat-down search. 24 Defendant Ramirez also approached Plaintiff and puffed out his chest in a threatening manner. 25 The Court has screened Plaintiff s amended complaint and finds that it fails to state a 26 claim. In a prior order, the Court screened Plaintiff s initial complaint and found that it failed 27 28 1 The prior sceening order was issued by Magistrate Judge Gary Austin. 1 1 to state a claim because a pat-down search does not constitute unconstitutional conduct and 2 Plaintiff s Complaint lacked facts indicating Defendant Ramirez had a culpable state of mind. 3 The Court also initially dismissed related claims and supervisor defendants. This Court agrees 4 with that conclusion as applied to similar facts presented in Plaintiff s amended complaint. 5 Given that the Court has already given leave to amend and the issue appears to be one 6 regarding the law rather than presentation of facts, the Court recommends dismissal of 7 Plaintiff s amended complaint with prejudice. 8 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 9 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 10 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). 11 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 12 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 13 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 14 ' 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 15 paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 16 appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 17 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 18 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 19 not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 20 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 21 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff s allegations are 22 taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 23 Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim to relief that 25 is plausible on its face. ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, 26 legal conclusions are not. Id. 27 To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 28 state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 2 1 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 2 standard. Id. 3 III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 4 Plaintiff alleges that while he was at Pleasant Valley State Prison, he was sexually 5 assaulted by Defendant correctional officer M. Ramirez. While conducting a pat-down of 6 Plaintiff, Defendant Ramirez squeezed the Plaintiff s buttocks. When Plaintiff asked why 7 Defendant Ramirez was squeezing Plaintiff s buttocks, Defendant Ramirez became hostile and 8 ordered Plaintiff to remain in a straddling position and Defendant Ramirez shoved his hand into 9 Plaintiff s scrotum. 10 11 Following the incident, Defendant Ramirez stalked and intimidated Plaintiff. On November 28, 2011, Officer Ramirez approached Plaintiff and flexed his chest. 12 Plaintiff names as defendants Pleasant Valley State Prison, Officer Ramirez, Office of 13 the Warden, and Hiring Authority. 14 IV. The Court dismissed Plaintiff s initial complaint upon screening. (ECF No. 11.) The 15 16 FIRST SCREENING ORDER Court reviewed the law regarding sexual harassment. The Court held in relevant part: 17 Sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms . . . prisoners [have a clearly established Eighth Amendment right] to be free from sexual abuse . . .”) see also Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia Dep t. of Corr. v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634, 665 (D.C. 1994) (“[U]nsolicited touching of . . .prisoner s [genitalia] by prison employees are simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society” (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 18 19 20 21 22 In evaluating a prisoner s claim, courts consider whether “the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind” and if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively “harmful enough” to establish a constitutional violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). Here, the facts alleged indicate, at most, that Plaintiff was subjected to a single pat down search. That, in Plaintiff s view, the search was sexual, does not state a claim for relief. Plaintiff must allege facts that indicate that he was touched in a sexual manner. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. 23 24 25 26 27 (ECF No. 11, at p.3). 28 /// 3 1 The Court also explained the law regarding retaliation and supervisory defendants and 2 described how Plaintiff s Complaint failed to state claims for retaliation or against any of the 3 supervisory defendants. 4 V. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 The Court finds that Plaintiff s amended complaint fails to state a claim against any 6 defendant. As the prior court found upon screening Plaintiff s initial complaint, the Court finds 7 that Plaintiff s allegations amount to the fact that Officer Ramirez conducted a pat-down search 8 that included feeling Plaintiff s scrotum, and that later Officer Ramirez puffed up his chest 9 when speaking to Plaintiff. 10 Prison officials are entitled to conduct pat-down searches, including in private parts of 11 inmates bodies. The alleged touching here occured in the context of a pat-down search. The 12 facts also do not establish that the pat-down search was done “with a sufficiently culpable state 13 of mind.” In other words, the facts do not indicate that Defendant Ramirez conducted the pat- 14 down search in order to sexually assault Plaintiff, or indeed that there was anything sexual 15 about the conduct. 16 It is clear that Plaintiff was greatly disturbed by these actions. Nevertheless, the Court 17 does not find that this conduct states a claim for sexual harassment or any constitutional 18 violation. 19 VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable 21 claim upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff 22 leave to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the Court. Plaintiff has now filed two 23 complaints without stating any claims upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. The 24 Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, 25 and therefore further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 26 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 27 /// 28 /// 4 1 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. 3 This action be DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and This dismissal count as a STRIKE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). 4 2. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 7 thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 8 written objections with the Court. 9 Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 10 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 11 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 12 (9th Cir. 1991)). The document should be captioned AObjections to 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 11, 2016 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
