(PC) Williams et al v. Woodford et al, No. 1:2006cv01535 - Document 49 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 45 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief may be Granted in Part and Dismissing Certain Claims signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/13/2009. Defendant shall File an Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint within Twenty (20) Days. Answer Due by 12/7/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Williams et al v. Woodford et al Doc. 49 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 Case No. 1:06-cv-01535-DLB (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED IN PART AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS v. JEANNE WODDFORD, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 (Doc. 45) / 14 15 I. ORDER 16 A. 17 Plaintiff John Wesley Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in Procedural History 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 19 on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on April 21, 2008, against Defendant T. Vasquez 20 (“Defendant”) for mail tampering and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.1 (Doc. 22.) 21 On August 10, 2009, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which 22 relief may be granted for certain claims. (Doc. 45, Def.’s Mot. To Dismiss.) On September 4, 23 2009, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. (Doc. 47, Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. To 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Grannis and Chrones were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed without prejudice for noncompliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a). (Doc. 23.) All parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and the action was reassigned to the undersigned in its entirety. (Docs. 9, 41, 42.) Plaintiff was advised of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss on February 17, 2009. (Doc. 27.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Dismiss.) On September 16, 2009, Defendant filed his reply. (Doc. 48, Def.’s Reply.) The 2 matter is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m). 3 B. 4 Plaintiff alleges that on July 2, 2004, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance against Summary of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 5 Defendant’s favoritism towards Hispanic inmates. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant subsequently 6 retaliated against Plaintiff by conducting a search of Plaintiff’s cell and issuing Plaintiff a CDC 7 128A chrono for possessing alcohol and making threats. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant filed a 8 false Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) against Plaintiff. Plaintiffs alleges that he then filed another 9 inmate appeal against Defendant on July 31, 2004. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vasquez then 10 tampered with Plaintiff’s mail in retaliation, and re-routed his mail to Pleasant Valley State Prison 11 while he was incarcerated at North Kern State Prison. 12 13 C. Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted 1. Legal Standard 14 “The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v. California 15 Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for 16 failure to state a claim, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, 17 Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in 18 the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's 19 favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). The federal 20 system is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 21 (2002). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 22 exceptions,” none of which apply to § 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 23 506, 512 (2002), overruled in part on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 24 (2007); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 25 Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 26 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must 27 simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it 28 rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 2 1 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 2 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 3 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 4 claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 5 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949. 6 Discovery and summary judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed 7 facts” and “dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. “The issue is not 8 whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to 9 support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very 10 remote and unlikely but that is not the test.” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) 11 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 12 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) ) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of 13 the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). 14 2. 15 16 Discussion A. Retaliatory Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s retaliatory RVR claim must be barred pursuant to 17 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Mot. To Dismiss 5:5-6:11.)2 Defendant contends that 18 Plaintiff’s challenge that the RVR was false and retaliatory necessarily implies the invalidity of the 19 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant seeks judicial notice of the RVR in question, RVR log no. KVSP A-09-07-0082, as well as Plaintiff’s chronological history. (Doc. 45-3, Request For Judicial Notice; Doc. 45-4, Decl. Of C. Carson; Doc. 455, Exh. A, RVR log no. KVSP A-09-07-0082; Exh. B, Pl.’s Chronological History.) “Where a document is integral to the plaintiff’s claims and its authenticity is not disputed, the plaintiff obviously is on notice of the contents of the documents and the need for a chance to refute the evidence is greatly diminished.” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted), superseded in part on other grounds by statute, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, as recognized in Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Plaintiff referenced and incorporated the RVR in his first amended complaint. The motion to dismiss is thus not converted to a motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, the Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record and papers filed with the court without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Mack v. S. Bay Beer Dist., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (allowing judicial notice for records and reports of administrative bodies and for facts outside pleadings), overruled in part on other grounds by Astoria Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991). Defendant submits the declaration of C. Carson, the litigation coordinator at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, who declares that the exhibits submitted are true and correct copies. (Decl. Of C. Carson ¶¶ 1-5.) Defendant has sufficiently furnished evidence demonstrating that RVR log no. KVSP A-09-070082 and Plaintiff’s chronological history are accurate records. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. 3 1 loss of good time credits resulting from the prison disciplinary action. A prisoner plaintiff cannot 2 proceed on a claim where success would necessarily imply the invalidity of the length of a 3 prisoner’s sentence, until the prisoner obtains a favorable termination of a state or federal habeas 4 challenge to his sentence. 5 applied this “favorable termination” requirement to the context of prison disciplinary hearing 6 where good-time credits are affected. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). As seen in 7 both RVR log no. KVSP-A-09-07-0082 and Plaintiff’s chronological history, Plaintiff suffered a 8 loss of 120 days of good-time credits for the RVR. (Doc. 45-4, Decl. Of C. Carson ¶¶ 4-5; Doc. 9 45-5, Exh. A, RVR log no. KVSP-A-09-07-0082; Exh. B, Pl.’s Chronological History.) Plaintiff 10 11 Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. The United States Supreme Court has does not contest Defendant’s argument. Having reviewed the evidence submitted and construing the pleadings in light most 12 favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s claim that the RVR was retaliatory is barred under Heck. If 13 Plaintiff were to prevail in his § 1983 claim for the retaliatory RVR, Plaintiff’s success would 14 necessarily imply that the loss of good-time credits was invalid. Heck imposes the favorable 15 termination requirement, which requires Plaintiff to obtain a favorable termination ruling via a 16 habeas challenge prior to bringing a § 1983 action. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for 17 the retaliatory RVR. 18 B. Verbal Harassment 19 Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s that Defendant retaliated against him by (1) claiming 20 that Plaintiff had threatened him and (2) advising him to hide his legal property because he was 21 going to put it up [Plaintiff’s] ass” fail to state a claim. (Mot. To Dismiss 6:12-22.) Defendant 22 contends that verbal harassment or abuse is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation, and 23 that verbal threats cannot form the basis of a retaliation claim. (Mot. To Dismiss 6:12-22.) 24 Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s argument. 25 Construing the pleadings in light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s claims for verbal 26 harassment fail to state a cognizable claim. Mere verbal harassment or threat is not sufficient to 27 state a § 1983 claim. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal 28 citations omitted). Mere verbal threats are not sufficient to form the basis of a retaliation claim. 4 1 Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 875 (9th Cir. 1998); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 2 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for verbal harassment. 3 C. 4 False Accusations and False Administrative Chrono Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant (1) fabricated Plaintiff’s 5 threats against Defendant, (2) prepared and filed a false administrative chrono, and (3) filed a false 6 RVR fail to state a claim. (Mot. To Dismiss 6:23-7:9.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff has no 7 constitutionally guaranteed right to avoid false accusations. (Mot. To Dismiss 6:23-7:9.) Plaintiff 8 again does not contest Defendant’s arguments. 9 Defendant’s contention that a false RVR fails to state a claim is not accurate. See Hines 10 v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding that prison officer filing false disciplinary 11 action against inmate in retaliation for inmate’s use of grievance system is sufficient adverse action 12 for retaliation claim). However, Plaintiff’s retaliatory RVR claim remains barred under Heck. 13 As to Defendant’s other claims, the filing of false charges is not, per se, a violation of a 14 constitutionally protected right. Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. 15 denied, 485 U.S. 982 (1988). Furthermore, the alleged filing of the false administrative chrono 16 fails to state a claim because it is not a sufficient adverse action for a retaliation claim because the 17 chrono was merely informational. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005) 18 (comparing Ninth Circuit case law regarding sufficient grounds for cognizable retaliation claim). 19 The alleged fabrication of threats is also not a sufficient adverse action for a retaliation claim. See 20 id. 21 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant fabricated Plaintiff’s threats against Plaintiff and filed a false administrative chrono fail to state a claim. 23 D. 24 Qualified Immunity Defendant also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. (Mot. To Dismiss 7:10- 25 8:14.) Because the Court dismisses certain claims on other grounds, the Court declines to 26 consider Defendant’s arguments regarding qualified immunity. 27 II. 28 CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following: 5 1 1) 2 3 is GRANTED in part; 2) 4 5 Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim regarding certain claims Plaintiff’s claim for retaliatory rules violation report is DISMISSED as barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); 3) Plaintiff’s claims for verbal harassment, fabricated threats, and false administrative 6 chrono are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 7 granted; 8 4) 9 retaliatory cell search in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant T. 10 11 Vasquez; and 5) 12 13 14 This action proceed on Plaintiff’s remaining claims of mail tampering and Defendant shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint within twenty (20) days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a November 13, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
