(PC) Yates v. Brown et al, No. 2:2014cv00368 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/20/2014 GRANTING plaintiff's 2 request to proceed IFP; plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee in accordance with the concurrent CDCR order; and RECOMMENDING that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as frivolous, and that the case be closed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Yates v. Brown et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THEODORE BRITTON YATES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-368-KJM-EFB P v. EDMUND J. BROWN, JR., et al., 15 ORDER GRANTING IFP AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil action. In addition to 17 18 filing a complaint, he has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915.1 20 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 21 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 28 1 This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. Screening Requirement and Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 9 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 11 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 12 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 13 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 14 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 16 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 17 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 19 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 20 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. 21 Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 22 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 23 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 24 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 25 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 26 129 S. Ct. at 1949. 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 2 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 3 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 4 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a 5 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 6 Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to 7 the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 8 III. Screening Order 9 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A. It names 10 California Governor Jerry Brown and the Department of Motor Vehicles as defendants. Plaintiff 11 states that he was convicted in 1986 for drunk driving. He claims that the DMV is not accepting 12 his CDCR certificates of completion for various substance abuse and alcohol programs. In letters 13 attached to the complaint, plaintiff suggests that his due process rights are being violated because 14 the DMV is not allowing him to get his driver’s license back. As relief, plaintiff requests that the 15 court order the DMV to accept his certificates of completion. 16 Plaintiff previously raised this claim against the same defendants in a prior lawsuit. That 17 complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The 18 court reasoned as follows: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 To obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show, among other things that he is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983). Plaintiff does not allege, and it is not reasonable to assume, that plaintiff has been injured in any way by not having a valid driver’s license while in prison. Moreover, plaintiff does not suggest that he will be released from prison during a time frame which could be considered “immediate” or that he will not be able to obtain a driver’s license within a reasonable period of time after being released from prison. Because plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that there is an immediate threat of injury if the court does not order his driver’s license reinstated at this time, he is not entitled to injunctive relief. In any case, nothing suggests plaintiff has been denied due process or unlawfully discriminated against. As for plaintiff’s due process claim, at least one court has found that a prisoner has no freestanding right arising under the Due Process Clause to a driver’s license. See Dominique v. Weld, 880 F. Supp. 928, 3 1 939 (D. Mass. 1995). This court sees no reason to depart from that ruling here. Plaintiff has failed to point to any authority in his complaint suggesting that he has a right arising under state law to a driver’s license which is entitled to federal due process protection. 2 3 Any claim that plaintiff might have based upon discrimination would arise under the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. Generally speaking, if state action does not concern a fundamental right or target a suspect class, it will not be held to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as long as the action is rationally related to some legitimate end. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996). Plaintiff does not have a fundamental right under the Constitution to operate a motor vehicle, Miller v. Reed, 176 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1999), convicted felons are not members of a suspect class, e.g. U.S. v. Wicks, 132 F.3d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 1997) and it is rational for a state to not issue driver’s licenses to prisoners since, absent some extraordinary circumstance, they are not free to drive a motor vehicle while imprisoned. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Under certain circumstances, the court would grant plaintiff further leave to amend in an attempt to cure these deficiencies in the first amended complaint. Because there appears to be no possibility of plaintiff stating any federal claim upon which he could proceed against the defendants identified in his amended complaint or that he could state a valid claim against any person based on the alleged denial of his recent application for renewal of his driver’s license, this action will be dismissed. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Yates v. DMV, No. 2:10-cv-3133 (E.D. Cal), ECF No. 19 (Apr. 8, 2011 Order of Dismissal); see 17 also id., ECF No. 26 (June 29, 2011 Order of United States Court of Appeals) (summarily 18 affirming district court’s judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s appeal as “so insubstantial as not to 19 require further argument”). 20 For these same reasons, this action must also be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 21 Moreover, this action is plainly frivolous, as it merely repeats allegations that were previously 22 rejected by both the district court and the appellate court. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 23 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 4 1 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 2 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, filed 3 concurrently herewith. 4 5 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as frivolous and that the case be 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, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 11 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 12 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 14 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: May 20, 2014. 16 17 18 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.
