(PC) Wingfield v. California Correctional Healthcare Services, No. 2:2016cv02407 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/1/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is GRANTED; and the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and this case closed. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE WINGFIELD, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-2407 CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER & CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has submitted a declaration that 22 makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 II. Screening Standard 24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 26 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 28 1 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 2 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 3 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 4 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 5 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 6 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 7 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 8 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 9 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 10 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 11 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 12 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 13 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 14 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 15 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 16 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 17 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 18 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 19 and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 20 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 21 III. Discussion 22 This action proceeds on the complaint filed October 7, 2016. Plaintiff names one 23 defendant: California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS). Plaintiff attaches a May 16, 24 2016 “Notice of Data Breach” stating that, on April 25, 2016, an unencrypted laptop was stolen 25 from a CCHCS employee’s personal vehicle. The laptop was password protected, but may have 26 contained confidential data related to plaintiff’s custody and care between 1996 and 2014. (ECF 27 No. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff asserts that this incident has put him at risk of having his personal 28 information misused, and that prison officials responsible for the incident have violated California 2 1 law and plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. 2 First, plaintiff is required to establish standing for each claim he asserts. DaimlerChrysler 3 Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). If a plaintiff has no standing, the court has no subject 4 matter jurisdiction. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Adams, 629 F.2d 587, 593 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1980) 5 (“[B]efore reaching a decision on the merits, we [are required to] address the standing issue to 6 determine if we have jurisdiction.”). There are three requirements that must be met for a plaintiff 7 to have standing: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally 8 protected interest which is both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent; (2) there must 9 be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be 10 likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 11 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Wash. Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Wash., 271 F.3d 835, 847 12 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Here, plaintiff has not shown he has standing to sue because the 13 complaint demonstrates only that the theft of the state’s laptop has the potential to injure plaintiff. 14 Plaintiff alleges no actual misuse of his personal information stemming from the theft. 15 Second, the violation of state tort law, state regulations, rules and policies of the CDCR, 16 or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. To state a claim under § 17 1983, there must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 18 424 U.S. 693 (1976). Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law 19 claims, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 20 1367. 21 Third, the complaint fails to state a claim under the Due Process Clause, which protects 22 prisoners from being deprived of property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 23 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). “It is well established that negligent conduct is ordinarily not enough to 24 state a claim alleging a denial of liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Doe 25 v. Beard, 2014 WL 3507196, *6 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2014), citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 26 327, 330 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986) (“[T]he Due Process Clause of 27 the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by the lack of due care of an official causing 28 unintended injury to life, liberty or property. In other words, where a government official is 3 1 merely negligent in causing the injury, no procedure for compensation is constitutionally 2 required.”). 3 Finally, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private 4 parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See 5 Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)( per curiam); 6 Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). Because the State of California 7 has not consented to suit, plaintiff’s claims against CCHCS must be dismissed. 8 9 For these reasons, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. IV. No Leave to Amend 10 If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court 11 has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126- 12 30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the 13 defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see 14 also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given 15 leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely 16 clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (citing Noll v. 17 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear 18 that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. 19 Cato, 70 F.3d at 1005-06. 20 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, plaintiff lacks standing and his allegations 21 show only speculative injury. Because the complaint does not state a cognizable federal claim, 22 the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. As it appears amendment 23 would be futile, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without leave to 24 amend. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 4 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and 3 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 4 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and 5 this case closed. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 8 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 9 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 10 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 11 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 12 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 Dated: November 1, 2016 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 2 / wing2407.14.new 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.
