William J. Jones v. Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility II et al, No. 2:2018cv03023 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached. Plaintiff is fur ther advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiffs' convenience. (See document for further details). (mr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
William J. Jones v. Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility II et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM J. JONES, 11 Case No. CV 18-3023 AB (SS) Plaintiff, 12 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. 13 DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH CORCORAN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY II, et al., 14 15 LEAVE TO AMEND Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 20 21 22 23 On April 3, 2018,1 Plaintiff William J. Jones (“Plaintiff”), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The “mailbox rule” announced by the Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to § 1983 cases. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). Pursuant to the mailbox rule, pro se prisoner legal filings are deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers the document to prison officials for forwarding to the court clerk. Id. Here, the Complaint’s Proof of Service indicates that Plaintiff sent the Complaint on April 3, 2018. 1 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1 at 36). 2 appeared that Plaintiff previously had filed numerous meritless 3 cases, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause Why This Court 4 Should Not Deem Plaintiff A Vexatious Litigant. 5 7). 6 reviewing the response, the Court vacated the OSC on July 12, 2018. 7 (Dkt. Nos. 10). 8 to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fee. On May 21, 2018, because it Plaintiff responded on June 4, 2018. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. (Dkt. No. 9). After The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for Leave (Dkt. No. 12). 9 10 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which requires district courts to perform an 12 initial screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner 13 seeks redress from a governmental entity or employee. 14 may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion, before service of 15 process if it concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or 16 malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 17 granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 18 immune from such relief. 19 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 20 For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint 21 with leave to amend.2 This Court 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2); see also Lopez 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 A magistrate judge may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without the approval of a district judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that “the dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend is a non-dispositive matter”). Consistent with McKeever, the Court concludes that its Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend is a non-dispositive Order. However, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, if Plaintiff disagrees, he may file an objection with the District 2 1 II. 2 ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT 3 4 Plaintiff sues thirteen Defendants: Treatment Facility (“the 5 Abuse 6 Sherman (“Sherman”); (3) Captain W. Cotter (“Cotter”); (4) Captain 7 M Solario (“Solario”); (5) Lieutenant Ward (“Ward”); (6) Sergeant 8 Leahy 9 Ibarra (“Ibarra”); (9) Correctional Officer Coffman (“Coffman”); (“Leahy”); (7) Correctional II (1) Corcoran Substance Sergeant Officer Facility”); Roacha Cribbs (2) Warden (“Roacha”); (“Cribbs”); Stu (8) Sergeant (11) Correctional 10 (10) 11 Officer Heavener or Heavenly (“Heavener/ly”); (12) Correctional 12 Officer Sasin (“Sasin”); and (13) Correctional Officer Reveles 13 (“Reveles”). 14 Defendants 15 capacities. (Complaint at 2-7). are sued in both Aside from the Facility, all their individual and official (Id.). 16 17 The Complaint raises four claims. The first three concern 18 allegations that Defendants took his property. Specifically, Claim 19 1 asserts that Plaintiff was deprived of his property in violation 20 of the Fifth Amendment. 21 he alleges that when he went to pick up his property at Receiving 22 and Release (“R&R”) after being transferred to the Facility, Cribbs 23 informed him that he had too much property. 24 gave him a box to store his property in, and Plaintiff was to send 25 home or discard whatever did not fit. (Id. at 8-20). In support of this claim, (Id. at 9). (Id.). Cribbs When Plaintiff 26 27 28 Judge. 2015). See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 3 1 complained that he was entitled to “one extra cubit [sic] foot of 2 property,” Cribbs, Coffman and Sasin “began to plunder Plaintiff’s 3 property.” 4 television, explaining that “this is a bubble T.V. it is not allowed 5 here.” 6 donate it, or have it destroyed. 7 that Reveles and Sasin later stole a number of other items from 8 him. 9 that when Plaintiff complained, upon being transferred to the 10 Facility, that he was not supposed to be housed in a dorm setting 11 because he “had 58 points . . . [and] was a third-striker [with] 12 life,” Heavener/ly failed to respond and correct the mistake. 13 at 8). (Id. at 10). (Id.). Later, Coffman removed Plaintiff’s Coffman gave Plaintiff the option to send it home, (Id. at 14-15). (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges In addition, Plaintiff alleges in Claim 1 (Id. 14 15 In Claim 2, Plaintiff asserts that he was deprived of his 16 religious artifacts in violation of the First Amendment. (Id. at 17 21-25). 18 religious necklace, prayer rug, tallith and matching yarmulke, and 19 Ibarra told him the necklace was “1/16 of an inch too big.” (Id. 20 at 11). 21 property home. 22 with a “pre-paid bulk rate postage,” however, Cribbs told him he 23 could not “use postage stamps to send property home” because he 24 needed “money on the books.” He alleges that Coffman and Sasin confiscated Plaintiff’s Plaintiff was provided a form to send the confiscated (Id.). When he attempted to send his property home (Id.). 25 26 27 In Claim 3, Plaintiff asserts that he was subject to an unreasonable search and seizure 28 4 in violation of the Fourth 1 Amendment, based on the alleged actions described above. 2 (Id. at 26-31). 3 4 In Claim 4, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of access 5 to the court in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 6 32-33). 7 that his property would be destroyed if he “did not get funds put 8 on it’s books.” 9 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) (Id. at He claims that on June 28, 2018, Cribbs sent him a notice (Id. at 12). In response, Plaintiff filed a 10 Form 602 to appeal the alleged mishandling of his property. (Id.). 11 He alleges that he then conferred with Cotter, Ward and Leahy, who 12 arranged for Plaintiff “to swap out [his] property.” 13 On July 29, 2018, when Plaintiff thought he was going to R&R to 14 retrieve his property, he was refused service by Cribbs and Ibarra. 15 (Id. at 12-13). 16 for his CDCR Form 602 on August 2, 2017, but felt that Reveles 17 “interrupted and muddied the waters with rhetoric that fell outside 18 the scope of the issues at hand.” (Id. at 13). Plaintiff states that he was provided a hearing (Id. at 14). 19 20 Plaintiff seeks $249,833.45 in compensatory damages 21 ($215,000.00 against Defendants and $34,833.45 in property loss) 22 and $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. (Id. at 34-35). 23 24 III. 25 DISCUSSION 26 27 The Court must dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 1915A(b) because it violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 5 1 among various other defects. However, because it is not 2 “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not 3 be cured by amendment,” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th 4 Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), the 5 Court gives Plaintiff leave to amend his claims. 6 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a 8 complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim 9 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give 10 the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds 11 upon which it rests.’” 12 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). 13 violated when a pleading “says too little,” and “when a pleading 14 says too much.” 15 2013) (emphasis in original). 16 obligation to give liberal construction to the filings of pro se 17 litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims made by 18 inmates. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 19 2013); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 511 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per 20 curiam). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. Rule 8 may be Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. However, the courts also have an 21 22 The Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 because its 23 allegations are repetitive and excessive. 24 repeats irrelevant facts throughout the Complaint, including how 25 “Plaintiff was not supposed to be in a dorm setting [because he] 26 had 58 points.” 27 been incorrect to house Plaintiff in a dorm setting, it has no 28 apparent relevance to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the (Complaint at 8-9, 12-14). 6 Plaintiff continuously Although it may have 1 First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 2 his claims, Plaintiff should only allege facts that are relevant 3 and give rise to a § 1983 action, including that Defendants are 4 acting under color of law, what their specific actions were, and 5 how their actions directly violated his constitutional rights under 6 the 7 allegations render the pleading confusing and violate Rule 8’s 8 requirement of a “short and plain statement of the claim.” 9 e.g., Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1108. Eighth Amendment. Excessive, To properly plead unnecessary and irrelevant See, In addition, because Plaintiff is 10 not required to provide evidence supporting his claims at this 11 stage of the litigation, it is unnecessary for him to attach 12 extensive exhibits. 13 14 The Complaint also fails to comply with Rule 8 due to its 15 unsupported conclusory allegations. Specifically, paragraphs 39 16 through 77 provide nothing more than a “formulaic recitation of 17 the elements” of a § 1983 claim. 18 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Rule 19 8 . . . does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it 20 demands more than an unadorned, the–defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 21 accusation.” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). (Complaint at 8, 17-33); Twombly, 22 23 Although the Complaint does provide specific allegations 24 regarding the conduct of each listed Defendant, these fail to 25 support any § 1983 claims. 26 a plaintiff must show either the defendant’s direct, personal 27 participation in the constitutional violation, or some sufficient 28 causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the alleged To establish a civil rights violation, 7 1 violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2 2011). 3 Defendants personally violated any constitutional rights. 4 example, the Complaint’s only reference to Heavener/ly is that he 5 left Plaintiff to be housed in a dorm setting at the Facility and 6 instructed Plaintiff that he would receive his property “later” 7 because he had “to[o] many boxes.” 8 as to Cotter, Ward and Leahy, Plaintiff states merely that they 9 met with Plaintiff and addressed his concerns by taking appropriate The Complaint’s factual allegations do not (Complaint at 8). show how For Similarly, 10 administrative measures to rectify the situation. 11 The 12 Plaintiff that he was being transferred,” affirming Plaintiff’s 13 own contention that he inappropriately housed. 14 of these allegations show violations of constitutional rights. 15 Because the Complaint violates Rule 8, it is dismissed with leave 16 to amend. only mention of Solario, moreover, was that (Id. at 13). he informed (Id. at 14). None 17 18 IV. 19 CONCLUSION 20 21 For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with 22 leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, 23 he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum 24 and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. 25 amended complaint, Plaintiff shall cure the defects described 26 above. 27 allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted 28 in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall not include new defendants In any or new The First Amended Complaint, if any, shall be 8 1 complete in itself and shall not refer in any manner to the original 2 Complaint. 3 Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this action. Its caption page shall bear the designation “First 4 5 The First Amended Complaint should be short and concise. In 6 any amended complaint, Plaintiff should confine his allegations to 7 those operative facts supporting each of his claims. 8 advised that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all 9 that is required is a “short and plain statement of the claim Plaintiff is 10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 11 strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint 12 form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached. 13 In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify the nature of 14 each separate legal claim and the Defendant (by name) against whom 15 the 16 allegations support each separate claim. 17 encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit irrelevant 18 details. 19 include legal argument. claim is asserted, and make clear what Plaintiff is specific factual Plaintiff is strongly It is not necessary for Plaintiff to cite case law or 20 21 Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file 22 a First Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies 23 described above, will result in a recommendation that this action 24 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey Court 25 orders 26 Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue 27 this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of 28 Dismissal pursuant in to Federal accordance with Rule of Federal 9 Civil Rule of Procedure Civil 41(b). Procedure 1 41(a)(1). 2 convenience. 3 instructed to clearly state whether he is dismissing the entire 4 action or only certain claims or certain Defendants. A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiffs’ If Plaintiff utilizes the Notice of Dismissal, he is 5 6 DATED: August 17, 2018 7 /S/ __________ SUZANNE H. SEGAL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 THIS DECISION IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN LEXIS, WESTLAW OR 12 ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10
]]>
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.
