Anaya v. CDCR

PETER ANAYA, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00040-MJS (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 20, 2016

ORDER DISMISSING SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 125)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 95.) He has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) No other parties have appeared in the action.

On February 22, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, and his first, second, and third amended complaints, on the ground that none of the complaints were complete in themselves without reference to other pleadings. (ECF No. 111.) On March 22, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 116.) On June 17, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint and "supplemental complaint" on the ground that neither was complete in itself without reference to the other. (ECF No. 124.) Plaintiff's sixth amended complaint is now before the Court for screening.

I. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous, malicious," or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. Pleading Standard

Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its face." Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California, where the acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. He names the following defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) Correctional Officer R. Van Vugt, (2) Sergeant C. Gray, (3) Correctional Officer T. Lucero, (4) Correctional Officer W.S. Wadkins, (5) Correctional Officer S. Nelson, (6) Correctional Officer A. Coronado, (7) Correctional Officer A. Tuzon, (8) Sergeant J. Barrios, (9) Correctional Officer C. Marquez, and (10) F. Uribe. Plaintiff also states that there are twenty-one "unknown CDCR officers among the general population" who also participated in the deprivation of his rights. He does not state any specific allegations against these twenty-one individuals.

Plaintiff's allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:

Defendants use CDCR computers and confidential mental health records to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Specifically, Defendants have unauthorized access to Plaintiff's mental health files and have placed false information therein indicating that Plaintiff sexually abused a child, was himself a victim of sexual abuse, and is homosexual. In fact, Plaintiff has no history of sexual offenses and his offense involving a child was non-sexual. He is "straight" and has been married four times.

As a result, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and physical ailments. His food tray has been contaminated with feces. He has been called derogatory names over the public address system and when called for medications.

Plaintiff's mental health needs have been ignored.

Defendants have installed "bugs," or concealed hearing devices to eavesdrop on Plaintiff. Correctional Officers follow Plaintiff wherever he goes. Plaintiff's bunk is regularly searched and left in disarray.

Defendants intend to kill Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's legal mail has been opened. Books of stamps that were sent to him in the mail by family have been withheld.

Plaintiff received a CDC-115 that was incorrect.

Plaintiff has tried to file administrative appeals regarding these issues, but Defendant Wadkins has refused to process the appeals and has disregarded Plaintiff's concerns.

Plaintiff contends that this conduct violates his constitutional rights and constitutes defamation, libel, and slander. He claims he is the victim of discrimination and harassment. Defendants' conduct violates his right of access to the Courts; the bill of rights; the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; the right to due process; the right to freedom from discrimination; the right to mental health care; California Government Code section 12940 (Fair Employment and Housing Act); and California Code of Civil Procedure sections 45, 46, and 527.6 (harassment). It also constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified injunctive relief and money damages.

IV. Analysis

Plaintiff's sixth amended complaint suffers from many of the same defects as his fourth amended complaint. The Court will again provide Plaintiff with the legal standards applicable to what appear to be his intended claims, and will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint if he believes, in good faith, that he can state a truthful cognizable claim.

A. Improper Joinder of Unrelated Claims

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a party to "join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party." However, Rule 20(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants in the same action only if "any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to orarising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and there is a "question of law or fact common to all defendants." "Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . ." See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

Plaintiff attempts to bring several unrelated claims in this action: mishandling of mental health records, confiscation of mail, and an incorrect CDC-115 Rules Violation Report. There are no facts to suggest that these actions are attributable to the same Defendants. Accordingly, these claims may not be brought in a single action.¹

Furthermore, claims relating to Plaintiff's mail and an incorrect CDC-115 were not alleged in Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff was advised that leave to amend was not granted for the purpose of adding new claims. Accordingly, these claims will not be addressed herein.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he again is advised that he will not be permitted to proceed on unrelated claims against different defendants.

B. Linkage

Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat superior, as each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235. Supervisors may only be held liable if they "participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to actto prevent them." Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff does not explain how any individual defendant personally participated in the denial of his rights. He merely alleges that all of the Defendants engaged in all of the acts he complains of. This lacks the requisite level of specificity to impose liability on any one Defendant. He therefore fails to state a claim. If Plaintiff chooses to...