Bell v. Hill et al
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/15/2011 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED; and the clerk is to enter judgment and close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANNY BELL,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. CIV S-10-0850-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
R. HILL, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
19
636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. The court issued an order to
20
show cause on October 5, 2011, requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be
21
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has not responded within the time provided.
22
In its prior order, the court found plaintiff’s amended complaint was insufficient
23
to state a claim. After providing plaintiff information on what was necessary to state a claim for
24
retaliation, the court allowed an opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies
25
in his claim. Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to do so, but the court allowed plaintiff an
26
opportunity to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
He has not responded.
As stated in the court’s prior order:
Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint as he had in his original
complaint, that he has suffered from retaliation and employment
discrimination. Plaintiff argues that defendant Etlin retaliated
against him, following plaintiff’s admonishment of defendant
Etlin’s behavior with a fellow employee. He avers that after he
admonished defendant, defendant transferred him to a new
employment position. He claims his admonishment was protected
free speech. In addition, because he was transferred to a non-paid
position, he is claiming discrimination.
8
After setting forth the standards as to what is required to state a claim for retaliation, the court
9
found plaintiff’s:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
amended complaint fails to cure the defects in his claims as
previously outlined. He states that his retaliation claim is based on
his First Amendment right to exercise free speech. The alleged
protected “free speech” was his admonishment of defendant Etlin’s
behavior. However, this is not the type of “free speech” the First
Amendment’s protection applies. Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation
requires a position that prisoners retains all First Amendment
rights, unabated, while incarcerated. However, that position is not
supported by United State Supreme Court precedent. Instead, the
Supreme Court has continuously held “a prison inmate [only]
retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with
his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological
objectives of the corrections system.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S.
817, 822 (1974). Indeed, the Supreme Court has long recognized
that “(l)awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal
or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by
the considerations underlying our penal system.” Price v.
Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948). As such, informally
admonishing the behavior of a correctional officer is not the type of
free speech that would be consistent with the protected behavior of
an inmate. If plaintiff reasonably believed his safety was at issue
due to defendant’s conduct, or he had other concerns, he could
have filed an inmate grievance. Instead, plaintiff chose to
admonish a correctional officer informally, which the court cannot
find as protected free speech supporting a claim of retaliation. The
court cannot therefore find plaintiff’s amended complaint states a
claim for retaliation.
Similarly, as the court previously pointed out, plaintiff
could only state a claim for employment discrimination if he
belongs to a protected class. There is nothing in plaintiff’s
amended complaint indicating he belongs to any protected class to
support his Title VII claim. As he fails to cure this defect, he
cannot state a claim for employment discrimination.
2
1
Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the order to show cause may result
2
in the dismissal of this action for the reasons outlined as well as for failure to prosecute and
3
comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. Plaintiff failed to responded to the
4
court’s order as directed. The undersigned finds it appropriate to dismiss this action for
5
plaintiff’s failure to comply to court order, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
6
granted.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1.
This action is dismissed; and
9
2.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
10
11
12
13
DATED:
November 15, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
