(PC) McDonald v. Newsom

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 JEFFREY D. MCDONALD, No. 2:24-cv-2167-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 without a lawyer. He has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this 19 action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 20 afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 21 proceed in forma pauperis is granted.1 22 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In 25 1 This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 filing fee in monthly installments that 26 are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one lump sum. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 (a). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust 27 account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). A separate order directed to CDCR requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be taken from plaintiff’s trust account. 28 These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(2). 1 performing this screening function, the court must dismiss any claim that “(1) is frivolous, 2 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief 3 from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A claim is legally frivolous 4 when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 , 325 5 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 6 legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 . The critical 7 inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and 8 factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 9 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 10 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 11 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 12 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 13 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 14 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . “A claim has facial 15 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 16 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . When 17 considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 18 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 19 favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 20 II. Factual Allegations of the Complaint 21 While an inmate at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton, California, 22 plaintiff lost his prison job as a porter in retaliation for filing a lawsuit against a correctional 23 officer. Plaintiff specifically alleges that Sergeant Morano told him on two separate occasions to 24 be a “good man” and a “team player” by dropping his lawsuit against the correctional officer. 25 Finally, on July 14, 2024, Sergeant Morano issued plaintiff a false disciplinary report in the form 26 of a 128 Counseling Chrono that resulted in plaintiff’s removal from his prison job and also 27 adversely affects his chance at being paroled. 28 Plaintiff also alleges that Correctional Officer Chaves, whom he sued in a different civil 1 rights lawsuit, defamed and harassed him in violation of state law. According to plaintiff, C.O. 2 Chaves is racist and has requested other CDCR officials to threaten other inmates who are 3 African American or who have filed lawsuits against correctional officers. 4 In a separate claim, plaintiff contends that CHCF Warden, Gena Jones, has threatened to 5 retaliate against other inmates in order to protect C.O. Chaves. 6 Plaintiff also names Governor Gavin Newsom as a defendant in this action for continuing 7 a policy of keeping African Americans as slaves. Governor Newsom is also conspiring with 8 Sergeant Morano, and C.O. Chaves to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 9 The complaint also indicates that another CHCF Inmate by the name of Dennis is 10 violating plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by retaliating against him. 11 Part of the complaint challenges plaintiff’s criminal conviction and describes an 12 incomplete and biased psychiatric evaluation review process prior to plaintiff’s last parole 13 suitability hearing. 14 By way of relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as 15 declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff also requests that he be released from serving his 16 criminal sentence. 17 III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 18 After conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court finds that 19 plaintiff has adequately stated a valid First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant 20 Morano. 21 IV. Failure to State a Claim 22 However, the allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to state any claim for relief 23 against defendants Newsom, Jones, Chaves, or Inmate Dennis. First, with respect to the claims 24 against Governor Newsom and Warden Jones, plaintiff sues them in their supervisory capacity 25 which is not a basis for liability in this civil rights action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 26 677 (2009) (“In a § 1983 suit ... the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious 27 liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding is only liable for his or her 28 own misconduct.”). When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link 1 between the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged; that 2 is, a plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either personally participated in 3 or directed the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to 4 act to prevent them. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Taylor v. List, 880 5 F.2d 1040 , 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). 6 Although plaintiff has sued C.O. Chaves in another lawsuit, he has not adequately alleged 7 any constitutional violation committed by this officer in this complaint. To state a claim for 8 conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiff must plead specific facts showing an agreement or 9 meeting of minds between C.O. Chaves and the remaining defendants to violate his constitutional 10 rights. Woodrum v. Woodward Cty., 866 F.2d 1121 , 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). He has not alleged 11 any such facts in this complaint. Plaintiff may not proceed with any supplemental state law 12 claims against defendant Chaves because he has not indicated that he complied with the 13 California Government Claims Act. Under California law, in order to state a tort claim against a 14 public entity or public employee under state law, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the 15 presentment of claims requirements of the California Government Claims Act. See Cal. Gov't 16 Code §§ 945.4; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621 , 627 (9th Cir. 1988). 17 The allegations against Inmate Dennis are not cognizable in this civil rights lawsuit 18 because plaintiff does not allege that this inmate is a state actor. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983, a plaintiff must show that (1) a defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived 20 plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. Benavidez v. County of San 21 Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021). His allegations against Inmate Dennis do not meet 22 this standard. 23 Plaintiff also generally alleges that the state prison system constitutes indentured servitude 24 in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Although the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery 25 and involuntary servitude, it explicitly exempts forced labor imposed as punishment pursuant to a 26 criminal conviction. U.S. Const. Amend. XIII. The Thirteenth Amendment does not apply where 27 prisoners are required to work in accordance with prison rules. Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056 , 28 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Therefore, the allegations in the complaint do not allege a 1 Thirteenth Amendment violation against any named defendant. 2 To the extent that plaintiff is challenging his criminal conviction or his parole denial, these 3 claims are only capable of being raised in a habeas corpus petition. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 4 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (describing “core” habeas claims as distinguished from 5 those claims properly raised in a civil rights action). A civil rights complaint is not the 6 appropriate procedural vehicle for challenging a criminal conviction issued by a state court. 7 It appears to the court that plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to fix the 8 problems identified in this screening order. Therefore, plaintiff has the option of filing an 9 amended complaint. 10 V. Options from Which Plaintiff Must Choose 11 Based on the court’s screening, plaintiff has a choice to make. After selecting an option 12 from the two options listed below, plaintiff must return the attached Notice of Election form to 13 the court within 21 days from the date of this order. 14 The first option available to plaintiff is to proceed immediately against defendant 15 Morano on a First Amendment retaliation claim. By choosing this option, plaintiff will be 16 agreeing to voluntarily dismiss the remaining defendants and claims. The court will 17 proceed to immediately serve the complaint and order a response from defendant Morano. 18 The second option available to plaintiff is to file an amended complaint to fix the 19 problems described in Section IV above against the remaining defendants. If plaintiff 20 chooses this option, the court will set a deadline in a subsequent order to give plaintiff time 21 to file an amended complaint. 22 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 23 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 24 not. You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your First 25 Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Morano and voluntarily dismiss the other claims 26 and defendants; or, (2) try to amend the complaint. To decide whether to amend your complaint, 27 the court has attached the relevant legal standards that may govern your claims for relief. See 28 //// 1 | Attachment A. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an amended 2 || complaint. 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. 5 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 6 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 7 || § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 8 || appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 9 3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Newsom, Jones, Chaves, and Inmate Dennis do 10 | not state claims for which relief can be granted. 11 4. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his First Amendment retaliation 12 | claim against defendants Morano as set forth in Section III above, or to file an amended 13 | complaint. 14 5. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 15 | attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 16 | complaint or whether he wants to file an amended complaint. 17 6. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court will assume that he is choosing to 18 | proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend dismissal without prejudice of 19 | defendants Newsom, Jones, Chaves, and Inmate Dennis. 20 | DATED: May 5, 2025 fo 22 ) 23 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 JEFFREY D. MCDONALD, No. 2:24-cv-2167-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his First Amendment retaliation claim against 19 defendant Morano without amending the complaint. Plaintiff understands that by 20 choosing this option, the remaining defendants and claims will be voluntarily dismissed 21 without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). [22] 23 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. [24] 25 DATED:_______________________ 26 Jeffrey D. McDonald Plaintiff pro se [28] 1 Attachment A 2 This Attachment provides, for informational purposes only, the legal standards that may 3 apply to your claims for relief. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an 4 amended complaint. 5 I. Legal Standards Governing Amended Complaints 6 If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 7 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, [8] 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must specifically identify how each named 9 defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 10 There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or 11 connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, [12] 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 13 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 , 14 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 15 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 16 his amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an 17 amended complaint replaces the prior complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) 18 (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 19 2012). Therefore, in an amended complaint, every claim and every defendant must be included. 20 II. Legal Standards Governing Substantive Claims for Relief 21 A. Linkage Requirement 22 Section 1983 requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the 23 defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. 24 Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 , 370-71 25 (1976). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant's 26 “personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 27 series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 28 [the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 1 constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks 2 and citation omitted). 3 The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a 4 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 5 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 6 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 7 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). To state a claim for relief under § 1983, plaintiff must link each 8 named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 9 plaintiff’s federal rights. 10 B. Retaliation 11 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five 12 basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 13 because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's 14 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 15 correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 16 Filing an inmate grievance is a protected action under the First Amendment. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 17 F.3d 1283 , 1288 (9th Cir. 2003). A prison transfer may also constitute an adverse action. See 18 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing an arbitrary confiscation and 19 destruction of property, initiation of a prison transfer, and assault as retaliation for filing inmate 20 grievances); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a retaliatory prison 21 transfer and double-cell status can constitute a cause of action for retaliation under the First 22 Amendment).