(PC) Dominguez v. Padilla et al, No. 1:2018cv01731 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Case Proceed Only Against Defendant Padilla for Retaliation Under the First Amendment and that All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim re 13 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/10/2020. Referred to Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN DOMINGUEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. F. PADILLA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:18-cv-01731-NONE-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT PADILLA FOR RETALIATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 13.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. BACKGROUND Marvin Dominguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On October 15, 2019, the court screened the Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 10.) On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 13.) 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 1 1 In the original Complaint Plaintiff brought multiple claims against multiple defendants.1 2 (ECF No. 1.) Now, in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff omits all of the defendants except 3 one, Correctional Officer (C/O) F. Padilla, and omits all of the claims except one, for retaliation 4 in violation of the First Amendment. 5 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 11 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 12 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 13 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 14 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 15 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 16 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 17 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 18 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). 19 While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted 20 inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 21 marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 22 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678. While factual 23 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 24 25 26 27 28 1 In the original Complaint, Plaintiff named as defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) F. Padilla, C/O J. Oregel, C/O Oakley, Sergeant M. Owens, Stu Sherman (Warden, SATF), T. Cisneros (Chief Deputy Warden), Kathleen Alison (Director, CDCR), M. Voong (Chief of Appeals), and H. Liu (Appeals Examiner). (ECF No. 1.) In the court’s screening order for this Complaint, the court addressed claims for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, RLUIPA, Equal Protection, improper prison appeals process, adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment, failure to intervene under the Eighth Amendment, and retaliation. However, the found that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims in the Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) . 2 1 To state a viable claim for relief Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 2 state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 3 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 4 plausibility standard. Id. 5 III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 7 (SATF) in Corcoran, California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 8 Rehabilitation (CDCR), where the events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly 9 occurred. Plaintiff names as the sole defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) F. Padilla 10 (“Defendant”). 11 Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow: 12 Plaintiff is an active adherent to Judaism and a participant in the CDCR’s Kosher Diet 13 Program. The Kosher Diet program allows Plaintiff to follow his religious practices that 14 encompass “Hassid Chabad” tenets within Halachah (Jewish Law), washing hands before saying 15 a blessing and after consuming meals. (First Amended Comp., ECF No. 13 at 3.) SATF provides 16 pre-packaged shelf stable Kosher food and sets Kosher Row Tables, and when not available 17 Kosher meal participants are allowed to take their meals out of the dining hall and eat them inside 18 their housing in order to follow Jewish religious practice laws. 19 On November 17, 2017, Plaintiff was served a rotten Kosher meal. Plaintiff asked for a 20 replacement meal, to no avail. On November 21, 2017, he filed a 602 appeal.2 On December 21 20, 2017, while Plaintiff was being interviewed for the 602 appeal, defendant Padilla (without 22 authorization) walked in and listened to the whole interview while staring at Plaintiff with a very 23 angry expression on his face (mad-dogging), meant to intimidate Plaintiff. Defendant Padilla 24 has a history of intimidation and is a member of the “Green Wall,” a “guards gang” that uses 25 grievance interview tactics by guards to instill fear in prisoners so they will withdraw their 26 27 28 2 Here, Plaintiff refers to Exhibit A, which presumably is a copy of the grievance. (ECF No. 13 at 9 ¶ 26.) Throughout the First Amended Complaint Plaintiff refers the court to other exhibits. However, no exhibits were attached to the First Amended Complaint or otherwise submitted to the court. 3 1 grievances. (First Amended Comp., ECF No. 13 at 8-9 ¶ 26.)3 When Plaintiff refused to drop 2 the grievance it triggered a violent reaction from defendant Padilla who jumped out of his chair 3 and marched out of the office, slamming the door behind him. Plaintiff asked the interviewer if 4 there would be retaliation from guards, and the interviewed commented, “I don’t have control of 5 the guards.” (Id.) 6 7 On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff privately fasted the entire day in accordance with Judaism’s customs in recognition of “Kitzur Shulhan Arukh, chapter 127.” (Id. at 8-9 ¶26.) 8 On January 4, 2018, the A-facility kitchen had multiple water leaks from the roof that 9 dripped down into the chow hall and onto dining tables, this water leakage mixed with dead 10 animals, bird/mice feces, and mold, releasing a foul odor. Defendant Padilla worked with officers 11 Oregel [not a defendant], Oakley [not a defendant], and Owens [not a defendant] outside the 12 kitchen monitoring prisoners entering and exiting the kitchen. As Plaintiff picked up his Kosher 13 meals he was advised by the Kahal Manhig (Congregation Leader) that it was okay to take meals 14 out. Kahal Manhig was talking to defendant Padilla obtaining authorization for Jewish Kosher 15 participants to do so because of the horrible dining room conditions that contaminated the 16 assigned Jewish tables. 17 As Plaintiff exited the A-facility kitchen he was stopped by defendant Padilla while 18 officers Oregel and Oakley observed. Defendant Padilla asked him why he was taking his meals 19 out. Plaintiff explained and despite Padilla giving the Kahal Manhig permission, Padilla ordered 20 Plaintiff (while allowing others to pass by with their meals) to throw his meals in the garbage 21 without the option of going back into the dining hall to eat them. When Plaintiff explained why 22 he could not throw them away, Padilla said, “I don’t give a f**k! I take both, how about that?” 23 Id. at ¶ 33. Padilla violently snatched the meals out of Plaintiff’s hand and threw them into a 24 nearby trash can. Officer Oregel observed this and told defendant Padilla, “You are sick in the 25 head, bro,” meaning that defendant Padilla suffered from serious mental health issues. Id. at 10 26 27 3 28 All page numbers cited herein are those assigned by the court’s CM/ECF system and not based on Plaintiff’s pagination of the First Amended Complaint. 4 1 ¶ 34. 2 2018. Sergeant Owens was defendant Padilla’s supervisor who did not intervene although he is 3 responsible to do so. Sergeant Owen’s failure to act to correct defendant Padilla’s retaliatory 4 acts was done to avoid retaliation by the guards gang (Green Wall) of which defendant Padilla is 5 a known and active member. Sergeant Owens was in charge of the A-facility’s dining hall operations on January 4, 6 Plaintiff informed defendant Padilla about Jewish laws that, due to the kitchen’s 7 condition, prohibited Plaintiff from uttering holy words, such as a blessing, before ritually 8 cleaning his hands at mealtime, and prohibited Plaintiff from eating at a table with other prisoners 9 eating non-Kosher meals. CDCR title 15 § 3050(2) allows accommodations for those on 10 religious programs or religious observances to eat their meals inside their housing as Muslims do 11 during Ramadan. 12 Defendant Padilla’s violent actions against Plaintiff during his December 20, 2017 13 grievance interview, and then days later when foul water contaminated the religious sections of 14 the chow hall were directly motivated by Plaintiff refusing to withdraw his grievance. Plaintiff’s 15 602 appeal relating to food and religious practices triggered defendant Padilla to do what he did, 16 besides Plaintiff’s filing of the grievance in which Padilla intruded without authorization during 17 the interview. 18 As a result Plaintiff suffered stomach cramps from lack of food, dizzy spells, slight 19 constipation, and extreme nervousness because defendant Padilla might carry out further 20 retaliation. Padilla knew that even his supervisor or fellow officers would not intervene to stop 21 him. Many of them honor the Green Wall prison guards’ gang mentality and code of silence, 22 which CDCR and the media have called unlawful yet which is still practiced by CDCR guards 23 and supervisors. 24 On December 14, 2018, defendant Padilla again stopped Plaintiff when he was leaving 25 the dining hall and violently snatched Plaintiff’s Kosher meals from him. This happened one 26 week after Plaintiff was transported to testify in court against SATF’s kitchen conditions. 27 Plaintiff claims there is an A-facility vocation video recording which would prove 28 Plaintiff’s claim entirely, showing defendant Padilla’s violent torts committed against Plaintiff 5 1 after he refused to withdraw his prior filing of a grievance for receiving a rotten Kosher religious 2 meal. 3 Plaintiff seeks $30,000.00 general damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, 4 interest at the legal rate on all claims for compensatory damages, and costs of suit. Plaintiff is 5 open to participating in settlement proceedings. 6 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 7 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: 8 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 9 10 11 12 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely 13 provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 14 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also 15 Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 16 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); 17 Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). 18 To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted 19 under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution 20 or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 21 Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of 22 state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983, 23 ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act 24 which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 25 Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 26 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)); “The requisite causal connection may be 27 established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or 28 reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.” Preschooler II, 479 6 1 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743). This standard of causation “closely resembles 2 the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 3 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 4 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s Exhibits 5 A. 6 In the First Amended Complaint Plaintiff refers to exhibits which were not attached to or 7 submitted with the First Amended Complaint.4 Therefore the court was unable to review 8 Plaintiff’s exhibits when screening the First Amended Complaint. 9 10 11 B. Retaliation Plaintiff claims that defendant Padilla retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. 12 As discussed by the Ninth Circuit in Watison v. Carter: 13 “A retaliation claim has five elements. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the plaintiff must allege that the retaliated-against conduct is protected. The filing of an inmate grievance is protected conduct. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Second, the plaintiff must claim the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff. Id. at 567. The adverse action need not be an independent constitutional violation. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). “[T]he mere threat of harm can be an adverse action....” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1270. Third, the plaintiff must allege a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Because direct evidence of retaliatory intent rarely can be pleaded in a complaint, allegation of a chronology of events from which retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal. See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808 (“timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent”); Murphy v. Lane, 833 F.2d 106, 108–09 (7th Cir. 1987). Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official’s acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A] plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling effect may still state a claim if he alleges he suffered some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that is “more than minimal,” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11. That the retaliatory conduct did not chill the plaintiff from suing the alleged retaliator does not defeat the retaliation claim at the motion to dismiss stage. Id. at 569. 27 28 4 In the original Complaint, Plaintiff also referred to exhibits that were not attached to the Complaint or otherwise submitted to the court. (See court’s screening order, ECF No. 10 at 21 ¶ K.) 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fifth, the plaintiff must allege “that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution....” Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985). A plaintiff successfully pleads this element by alleging, in addition to a retaliatory motive, that the defendant's actions were arbitrary and capricious, id., or that they were “unnecessary to the maintenance of order in the institution,” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir.1984).” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012). The court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations in the First Amended Complaint state a cognizable claim against defendant Padilla for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 8 C. 9 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Padilla committed torts against him. However, Plaintiff 10 also acknowledges that he “did not file a state government claim with the states claim board, 11 therefore, any state tort claim is moot and not sought by this action.” (ECF No. 13 at 6 ¶ 3.) Torts Claims 12 As Plaintiff is aware, the Government Claims Act requires exhaustion of state law claims 13 with California’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and Plaintiff is required 14 to specifically allege compliance in his complaint. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal.4th 15 201, 208-09 (Cal. 2007); State v. Superior Court of Kings Cnty. (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 16 (Cal. 2004); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th 17 Cir. 2001); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). 18 Plaintiff has not done so. Therefore, Plaintiff’s torts claim fails. Relief Requested – Declaratory Relief and Attorney’s Fees 19 D. 20 Plaintiff requests monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit. 21 Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief should be denied because it is subsumed by 22 Plaintiff’s damages claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 565-66 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) 23 (because claim for damages entails determination of whether officers’ alleged conduct violated 24 plaintiff’s rights, the separate request for declaratory relief is subsumed by damages action); see 25 also Fitzpatrick v. Gates, No. CV 00-4191-GAF (AJWx), 2001 WL 630534, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 26 Apr. 18, 2001) (“Where a plaintiff seeks damages or relief for an alleged constitutional injury 27 that has already occurred declaratory relief generally is inappropriate[.]”) 28 judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of judicial 8 “A declaratory 1 discretion, exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village, 333 2 U.S. 426, 431 (1948); see also Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 762-63 (1987); Public Affairs 3 Assocs., Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111, 112 (1962) (per curiam); Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music 4 Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 533 (9th Cir. 2008). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will 5 neither serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate 6 the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” 7 United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (per curiam). In the 8 event that this action reaches trial and the jury returns a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, that verdict 9 will be a finding that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated. A declaration that Defendant 10 violated Plaintiff’s rights is unnecessary. 11 With regard to attorney’s fees, “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of 12 section[] 1983. . . , the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party. . . reasonable 13 attorney’s fees. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to attorney’s 14 fees if he prevails is without merit. Plaintiff is representing himself in this action. Because 15 Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney, he is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees if he 16 prevails. See Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 333 n.2 (9th Cir. 1990), superseded by statute 17 as stated in Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005); Gonzalez v. Kangas, 814 18 F.2d 1411, 1412 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Rickley v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 654 F.3d 950, 954 19 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Court accordingly adopted a per se rule, categorically precluding an award 20 of attorney’s fees under § 1988 to a pro se attorney-plaintiff.”) 21 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim in 23 the First Amended Complaint against defendant C/O F. Padilla for retaliation in violation of the 24 First Amendment. However, Plaintiff fails to state any other cognizable § 1983 claims against 25 defendant C/O F. Padilla. 26 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court should freely give 27 leave to amend when justice so requires.” Here, the court previously granted Plaintiff leave to 28 amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the court. The court is persuaded that Plaintiff is 9 1 unable to allege any facts, based upon the circumstances he challenges, that would state 2 additional cognizable claims. “A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would 3 be futile.” Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013). The court finds that the 4 deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore further 5 leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 6 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. 9 10 Padilla, but no other claims; 2. All remaining claims and defendants be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 11 12 This case proceed only with Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant C/O F. 3. 13 This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including service of process. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 16 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 17 written objections with the court. 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 20 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 21 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
