(PC) Brookins v. Metts, et al., No. 1:2017cv01539 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign a Fresno District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of 9 Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/31/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due within Thirty (30) Days. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BARRY LEE BROOKINS, Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A FRESNO DISTRICT JUDGE v. 12 13 Case No. 1:17-cv-01539-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM DR. P. METTS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 (ECF No. 9) 16 THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 Plaintiff Barry Lee Brookins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed June 8, 2018. (ECF 22 No. 9.) 23 I. 24 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 27 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 28 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 1 1 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 1915(e)(2)(B). 3 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 5 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 6 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 7 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 8 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 9 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 11 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 12 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 13 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 14 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 15 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 16 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 17 liability” fall short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 18 at 969. 19 II. 20 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 21 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 22 the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff names as defendants (1) 23 Dr. P. Metts, doctor at C-Facility Clinic; (2) AB, the Trust Accountant Office; (3) P. Martinez, 24 health care appeals coordinator; (4) C. Cryer, Chief Executive Officer; (5) Daniel Newton, CP; 25 (6) J. Lewis, Deputy Director of Policy and Risk Management Services, California Correctional 26 Health Care Services; and (7) L. Sherwood, Trust Accountant Office. The alleged violations 27 occurred at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (SATF) in Corcoran, California. 28 /// 2 1 Plaintiff alleges that on December 12, 2016, while at SATF, Dr. Metts informed Plaintiff 2 to take his old back brace to CTC when they called for him, where he could exchange it to be 3 issued a new one. The next day, a 193 trust withdrawal was sent from medical to the Trust 4 Accounts Office to place a hold on Plaintiff’s account for $684.46 for a back brace. This is in a 5 CDCR 22 request form by AB, dated February 23, 2017, which states as follows: 6 7 8 The trust office received a signed CDC 193 dated December 13, 2016 from medical authorizing a charge of $684.46 for a back brace. Any discrepancies, you must contact medical. The obligation has been released. However, $153.35 was charged to your account. 9 (Am. Compl., ECF No. 9, at 5.) This form was filled out by Daniel Newton, CP. 10 On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff was called to CTC to be issued his back brace by Daniel 11 Newton, CP. Plaintiff was asked to sign a 7536 form that he received his medical equipment. 12 Newton had not been concerned with the one-for-one exchange back brace. 13 On January 8, 2017, Plaintiff received funds, and all of it was taken ($153.35). Plaintiff 14 attempted to return the new back brace or exchange the old one to resolve his money being 15 extorted from him. During a January 4, 2017 interview with Dr. Metts regarding the one-for-one 16 exchange for the back brace, it now appears the information given on December 12, 2016 had 17 been misleading information. 18 On January 20, 2017, another interview was conducted with Dr. Metts to resolve this 19 matter. Dr. Metts said it was out of his hands. At another interview on January 24, 2017, 20 Plaintiff was advised by RN Linsey to appeal the matter. 21 On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff spoke with Dr. Metts again, and he again said that there was 22 nothing he could do about it. 23 It was made clear in a HC 602 17065001 dated May 29, 2017 that there had been a 24 discrepancy. Defendant Sherwood did not rectify the matter. Medical appeals coordinator P. 25 Martinez had an opportunity on July 7, 2017 to correct the matter, but did not do so. P. Martinez 26 found that the 193 trust withdrawal did not have to be filled out by the patient, but only signed by 27 the patient. 28 /// 3 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Deprivation of Property 4 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution 5 protects Plaintiff from being deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. 6 McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 5563 (1974), and Plaintiff has a protected interest in his personal 7 property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). Authorized, intentional 8 deprivations of property are actionable under the Due Process Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 9 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985). However, 10 the Due Process Clause is not violated by the random, unauthorized deprivation of property so 11 long as the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 12 517, 533 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). 13 In this case, Plaintiff alleges that after he signed a document merely to show that he 14 received a new back brace, the form was taken and information was forged on the form, 15 including his name and authorization for a debit of his trust account. This was against policy, 16 against his intentions, and done without any authority. Due Process is therefore satisfied if there 17 is a meaningful post-deprivation remedy available to him. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Here, 18 Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy available under California law. Barnett v. 19 Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810–895). 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for the alleged deprivation of his 21 personal property. This deficiency cannot be cured by amendment. 22 B. Inmate Appeal Process 23 “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations 24 of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish 25 that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Here, 26 Plaintiff asserts that his appeals were improperly handled because the investigators merely took 27 the fact that his signature was on the form as conclusive evidence that the debit for his trust 28 account was authorized. They did not investigate his information that he did not agree to the 4 1 debit, that the funds were taken under false pretenses, that the filling out of the form was 2 unauthorized, and that the taking of his funds was unlawful. Plaintiff asserts that the appeals 3 process resulted in the wrong outcome. 4 The existence of an inmate appeals process does not create a protected liberty interest 5 upon which Plaintiff may base a claim that he was denied a particular result or that the appeals 6 process was deficient. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 7 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). That is, liability may not be based merely on Plaintiff's 8 dissatisfaction with the administrative process or a decision on an appeal. Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 9 860; Mann, 855 F.2d at 640. Prison officials are not required under federal law to process 10 inmate grievances in a specific way or to respond to them in a favorable manner. Because there 11 is no right to any particular grievance process, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim for a 12 violation of his due process rights based on allegations that prison officials ignored or failed to 13 properly process grievances. See, e.g., Wright v. Shannon, 2010 WL 445203 at *5 (E.D. Cal. 14 Feb. 2, 2010) (plaintiff's allegations that prison officials denied or ignored his inmate appeals 15 failed to state a cognizable claim under the First Amendment). 16 To the extent Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation, that is not a 17 basis for a plausible due process claim. To the degree plaintiff is trying to hold the individuals or 18 others liable for an independent, unspecified constitutional violation based upon his allegedly 19 inadequate investigation, there is no such claim. See Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 20 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[W]e can find no instance where the courts have recognized 21 inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another 22 recognized constitutional right involved.”); Page v. Stanley, No. CV 11–2255 CAS (SS), 2013 23 WL 2456798, at *8–9 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2013) (dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that 24 officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff “had 25 no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a ‘thorough’ 26 investigation or a particular outcome”). 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 C. Equal Protection 2 Plaintiff also alleges that his equal protection rights were violated. The Equal Protection 3 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated 4 alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). An equal 5 protection claim may be established in two ways. The first method requires a plaintiff to show 6 that the defendant has intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of the 7 plaintiff’s membership in a protected class. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 8 (9th Cir. 2005); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). The second 9 requires that Plaintiff have received disparate treatment compared to other similarly situated 10 inmates without a rational basis for that difference in treatment. Village of Willowbrook v. 11 Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). For either theory, Plaintiff must show evidence of 12 discriminatory intent. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 (1976); Serrano v. 13 Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 Here, Plaintiff makes a blanket allegation that he is being discriminated against based on 15 the forgery and wrongful taking of his funds, but he alleges no facts showing how his equal 16 protection rights were violated. Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts showing discriminatory 17 intent, disparate treatment, or intentional discrimination, and therefore has not stated an Equal 18 Protection claim. His conclusory allegations that some discrimination must be occurring because 19 other prisoners are not treated in this same manner are insufficient to state any equal protection 20 claim. 21 Plaintiff was previously given these standards and granted leave to amend to attempt to 22 state this claim, but he failed to cure the deficiencies. His allegations are largely the same as in 23 his prior complaint. Therefore, further leave to amend is not warranted. See Lopez v. Smith, 24 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 25 Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing “[f]utility of amendment” as a proper 26 basis for dismissal without leave to amend). 27 /// 28 /// 6 IV. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 3 4 Fresno District Judge to this action. Further, for the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this 5 6 action be dismissed, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 7 granted. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty 10 (30) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 11 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 12 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 13 may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 14 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: October 31, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
