Pitts v. Harrington

JOSEPH PITTS, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT HARRINGTON, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 21-00249 DKW-KJM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

June 14, 2021

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Joseph Pitts' ("Pitts") Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint ("Complaint") brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Pitts alleges that Defendants,¹ prison officials at the Halawa Correctional Facility ("HCF"), violated the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by instituting a policy that limits inmates in the Special Holding Unit to thirty-minutes per day for legal telephone calls. For the following reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED with partial leave to amend.

I. SCREENING

The Court is required to conduct a pre-Answer screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, or in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a). During this screening, the Court must dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) "are directed at screening out meritless suits early on"); see also Harris v. Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 2019) (describing screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(a)-(b)).

In determining whether a complaint or any portion thereof should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) or 1915A(b), the Court applies the same standard as that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("Rule 12"). See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Under this standard, a complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep't, 885 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). A claim is "plausible" when the facts alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a specific defendant for specific misconduct. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although this plausibility standard does not equate to a "probability requirement," "it asks for more than sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id.; see also Dent v. Nat'l Football League, 968 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2020) (same).

Rule 12 is read in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) ("Rule 8") when screening a complaint. Rule 8 "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Id. (citation omitted). "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id. (citation omitted) (brackets in original); see also Woods v. U.S. Bank N.A., 831 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th Cir. 2016) (same).

The Court construes pro se litigants' pleadings liberally and affords them the benefit of any doubt. See Byrd, 885 F.3d at 642. Liberal construction of a pro se civil rights complaint, however, "may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nor do district court judges have an "obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants." Pliler v. Ford, 42 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Eblacas v. Agbulos, Civ. No. 18-00376 DKW-RLP, 2018 WL 5621954, at *2 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2018) ("While the court construes [the plaintiff's] allegations liberally and affords him the benefit of any doubt, it will not speculate about [the plaintiff's] claims, and has no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

The Court cannot dismiss a pro se litigant's pleading without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Before dismissing a pro se complaint, the Court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint "to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively." Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

//

//

//

//

II. PITTS' CLAIMS²

Pitts is a pretrial detainee at the HCF. ECF No. 1 at 1; see also VINE, https://www.vinelink.com/classic/#/home/site/50000 (follow "Find an Offender," then enter "Pitts" in "Last Name" field and "Joseph" in "First Name" field) (last visited June 9, 2021). He is awaiting retrial in State v. Pitts, No. 1PC091000097 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct.).³ ECF No. 1 at 1; see also Hawaii State Judiciary, https://www.courts.state.hi.us/ (follow "eCourt Kokua*," select "Click Here to Enter eCourt* Kokua," select "Case Search," and enter "1PC091000097" in "Case ID or Citation Number" field) (last visited June 9, 2021). Pitts is currently represented in state court by his court-appointed counsel, Nelson Goo.⁴ See Pitts, 1PC091000097, Dkt. No. 472.

Pitts also has a second civil rights complaint pending in this district.⁵ ECF No. 1 at 1; see Pitts v. Espinda, Civ. No. 20-00431 LEK-KJM (D. Haw.). Pitts is representing himself in that matter.

Pitts claims that there were no "restrictions" on his ability to make "legal calls" when he arrived at the HCF on February 5, 2021. ECF No. 1 at 1. According to Pitts, this changed following a riot at the HCF on April 16, 2021. Id. at 7. The riot led to a "standoff" between five inmates and guards. Id. Pitts was not one of the five inmates involved in the standoff. Id. Pitts claims that, in retaliation for the standoff, Warden Harrington and Chun implemented a policy that limited inmates who were housed in Special Holding Units to one thirty-minute period each day to make legal telephone calls. Id. This policy took effect on April 28, 2021. Id.

Pitts claims that he asked Adult Corrections Officer ("ACO") Kamanawa and CM Alicia (who are not named as defendants) "to add time to call [an] attorney" on May 3, 2021. Id. at 9. Chun allegedly instructed Kamanawa and Alicia to tell Pitts that he was to "go by [the] Warden's memo." Id. Pitts further claims that he orally asked Warden Harrington to lift the time limit on May 7, 2021, but Warden Harrington told Pitts, "you'll be alright," and he walked away. Id.

Pitts also claims that prisoners in Special Holding Units do not have access to a "confidential visiting room to meet with counsel without prison officials listening." Id. at 10. According to Pitts, he met with Schum in a room with audio and video surveillance capabilities on April 9, 23, and 29, 2021. Id. Pitts seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and damages. Id. at 11.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Framework for Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (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 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Park v. City & County of Honolulu, 952 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2020). Section 1983 requires a connection or link between a defendant's actions and the plaintiff's alleged deprivation. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978); Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) ("In a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was the actionable cause of the claimed injury." (citation omitted)). "'A person "subjects" another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.'" Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).

B. Eleventh Amendment

"The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities." Aholelei v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-03 (1984). It does not bar official-capacity suits against state officials for prospective relief to enjoin alleged ongoing violations of federal law. See Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n.10 (1989). Nor does it bar suits for damages against state officials in their personal capacities. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31 (1991); Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003).

Any claims for money damages against Warden Harrington and Chun in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and DISMISSED with prejudice. See Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 442 (9th Cir. 2016) ("The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages...