(PC) Fields v. Director of CDCR et al, No. 2:2018cv00653 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/4/2018 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; DISMISSING claim 1 with leave to amend within 30 days from the date of this order; DIRECTING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING defendant CDCR and claim 2, challenging plaintiff's alleged placement on the GP yard, be dismissed for the reasons discussed in this order and findings and recommendations. Plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All fees to be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the CDCR filed concurrently herewith. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLTON DWAYNE FIELDS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2: 18-cv-0653 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTOR OF CDCR, Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 21 22 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly 27 payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 28 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 1 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 4 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 5 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 6 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 8 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 10 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 13 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 14 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 15 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 16 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 17 1227. 18 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 21 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 22 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 23 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 24 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific 25 facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 26 the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 27 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). 28 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 2 1 complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most 2 favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other 3 grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 4 Named as defendants are the Director of the California Department of Corrections and 5 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Chief Deputy Warden Sexton, the CDCR and the Warden of California 6 State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). The complaint contains two claims. First, plaintiff alleges 7 that he has been denied single cell housing in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff 8 alleges that he has exhausted administrative remedies as to claim one. Second, plaintiff alleges that he is in the Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) for 9 10 mentally ill inmates. Plaintiff also alleges that he is classified as a sensitive needs inmate, who 11 has been housed on a sensitive needs yard (“SNY”). Plaintiff alleges that CDCR has a new 12 policy to place EOP/SNY inmates on the general population (“GP”) yard. Plaintiff alleges that 13 placing him in a GP yard puts him in danger. Plaintiff alleges that he has not exhausted 14 administrative remedies as to claim two because of “immediate threat to safety/no time.” 15 Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. 16 For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s claims against defendant CDCR are barred by the 17 Eleventh Amendment. Under the Eleventh Amendment, states and state agencies enjoy sovereign 18 immunity from private suits for damages or injunctive relief in federal court, unless the State has 19 waived or Congress has validly overridden such immunity. Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 20 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). “The State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity 21 with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court....” Id. Moreover, Congress did not 22 override sovereign immunity with respect to § 1983 suits. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State 23 Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67, 71 (1989) (“We cannot conclude that § 1983 was intended to disregard 24 the well-established immunity of a State from being sued without its consent. ... We hold that 25 neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”). 26 Accordingly, CDCR cannot be sued in this instance. The undersigned herein recommends 27 dismissal of defendant CDCR. 28 //// 3 1 2 3 4 5 Turning to claim one, plaintiff has not linked any defendant to the alleged deprivation. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 6 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 7 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 8 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 9 liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no 10 affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy 11 demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another 12 to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an 13 affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is 14 legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 15 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 16 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 17 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 18 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 19 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979) 20 (no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 21 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), cert. 22 denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of 23 official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 24 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal 25 participation is insufficient). 26 Claim one is dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff has failed to link any 27 defendant to the alleged deprivation. In other words, plaintiff does not specifically allege that any 28 defendant denied his request for single cell housing. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, 4 1 plaintiff must name as defendants those persons who allegedly failed to provide him with single 2 cell housing, why they did so, and how they were allegedly on notice that plaintiff needed single 3 cell housing. Plaintiff may not rely on exhibits to state his claims. 4 5 6 For the reasons stated herein, claim two should be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), “[n]o action shall be brought with 7 respect to prison conditions under ... [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner 8 confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 9 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 10 Proper exhaustion of available remedies is mandatory, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 11 741 (2001), and “[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other 12 critical procedural rules[.]” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). The Supreme Court has 13 also cautioned against reading futility or other exceptions into the statutory exhaustion 14 requirement. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6. Moreover, because proper exhaustion is necessary, 15 a prisoner cannot satisfy the PLRA exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise 16 procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-93. 17 “[T]o properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners ‘must complete the administrative 18 review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,’ [] - rules that are defined not 19 by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 20 (2007) (quoting Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88). See also Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027 21 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The California prison system’s requirements ‘define the boundaries of proper 22 exhaustion.’”) (quoting Jones, 549 U.S. at 218). 23 24 25 Because plaintiff concedes that he has not exhausted administrative remedies as to his claim challenging his placement on a GP yard, this claim should be dismissed. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 26 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 27 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 28 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 5 1 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 2 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 3 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, 4 vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not 5 sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 6 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 7 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 8 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 9 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 10 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 11 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 12 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 13 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 14 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 17 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 18 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 20 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 21 herewith. 22 3. Claim one is dismissed with leave to amend. 23 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 24 Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 25 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 26 b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint. 27 Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 6 1 2 3 also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 4 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 5 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant CDCR and claim two, challenging 6 plaintiff’s alleged placement on a GP yard, be dismissed for the reasons discussed above. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 12 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 13 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: May 4, 2018 15 16 Fields653.14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLTON DWAYNE FIELDS, 12 13 No. 2: 18-cv-0653 KJN P Plaintiff, v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 14 DIRECTOR OF CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order filed______________. _____________ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amended Complaint DATED: ________________________________ Plaintiff
]]>
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.
