Williams v. Price, Case No. 1:18-cv-00102-NONE-SAB (PC)

COREY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON PRICE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00102-NONE-SAB (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

July 29, 2020

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF Nos. 62, 70, 72)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Corey Williams ("Plaintiff"), a civil detainee, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is Brandon Price and Pam Ahlin's ("Defendants") motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on February 21, 2020. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's third amended complaint which was filed in this action after it was consolidated with a related case, Williams v. Price ("Williams III), No. 1:20-cv-00312-JLT.

The matter was referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following findings and recommendations.

I.RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH") facing commitment as a sexually violent predator ("SVP") under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"), California Welfare and Institutions Code, section 6600 et seq. (See Sec. Am. Compl. ("SAC") 1,¹ ECF No. 31.) In 2003, the Department of State Hospitals ("DSH") enacted section 891 of title 9 of the California Code of Regulations. (See SAC, Exh. 1.) Section 891 states, "Non-LPS patients shall not have access to the internet."

On October 26, 2009, the DSH enacted section 4350 of title 9 of the California Code of Regulations. (See SAC, Exh. 2.) At that time, as relevant here, Section 4350 stated:

Electronic devices with the capability to connect to a wired . . . and/or a wireless . . . communications network to send and/or receive information are prohibited, including devices without native capabilities that can be modified for network communication. . . . Some examples of the prohibited devices include desktop computers, laptop computers, cellular phones, electronic gaming devices, personal digital assistant (PDA), graphing calculators, and radios (satellite, shortwave, CB and GPS).

(See id.)

On December 22, 2017, the DSH issued a Notice of Emergency Amendments and Findings of Emergency for section 4350. (See SAC, Exh. 3.) An additional notice was issued around January 10, 2018. (See SAC, Exh. 4.) In relevant part, the amended section 4350 states:

(a) [P]atients are prohibited from having personal access to, possession, or on-site storage of the following items:

(1) Electronic devices with the capability to connect to a . . . and/or a wireless . . . communications network to send and/or receive information including, but not limited to, the following:

(A) Desktop computers; laptop computers; tablets, single-board computers or motherboards such as "Raspberry Pi;" cellular or satellite phones; personal digital assistant (PDA's); graphing calculators; and satellite, shortwave, CB and GPS radios.

(B) Devices without native capabilities that can be modified for network communication. The modification may or may not be supported by the product vendor and may be a hardware and/or software configuration change.

(2) Digital media recording devices, including but not limited to CD, DVD, Blu-Ray burners.

(3) Voice or visual recording devices in any format.

(4) Items capable of patient-accessible memory storage, including but not limitedto:

(A) Any device capable of patient-accessible digital memory or remote memory access.

(B) Recordable disks, including but not limited to CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and CD-ROM.

(C) Universal Serial Bus (USB) devices, also known as flash drives or thumb drives.

(D) Hard drives, subscriber identity module (SIM) cards, secure digital (SD) drives or cards, micro-secure digital drives or cards (MicroSD), compact flash drives, secure digital high capacity (SDHC), secure digital extended capacity (SHXC), and other similar insertable memory devices.

(E) Gaming devices with patient-accessible digital memory storage ability, the ability to access the internet, or the ability to play games or other media or access data not specifically designed for the device, or only able to be played on that particular gaming device, as provided by an approved third-party vendor.

(F) Floppy disks, hard disks, and vertical helical scan or video home system (VHS) cassettes.

(b) Electronic items that do not conflict with subsection (a) that patients are permitted to possess or have personal access to include:

(1) One (1) television or computer monitor; one (1) DVD, Blu-ray, or similar player; one (1) CD player; and one (1) radio or music player. These items shall not have internet, external communication, or wireless communication capability.

(2) No more than thirty (30) commercially manufactured and unmodified CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays received in factory-original packaging in a patient's room or unit storage. Patient may store additional manufactured and unmodified CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays in off-unit storage.

(3) Tablets or other devices designed for confined individuals through authorized vendors of the Department of State Hospitals and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that do not contain personally accessible data storage. If a device designed for confined individuals is modified, either the individual device or the type of device can be banned as violating subsection (a).

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 9, § 4350.

Plaintiff filed this action on January 22, 2018, against Defendants Price and Ahlin alleging his constitutional rights were violated by the emergency amendments to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 9, § 4350. (ECF No. 1.) On March 7, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that it stated a substantive due process claim. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he wished to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Id.) On April 3, 2018,following the retirement of Judge Seng, this matter was reassigned to the undersigned. (ECF No. 14.)

On April 5, 2018, the Court directed the Office of the Attorney General to make a special appearance to address Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction with a response due within fourteen days. (ECF Nos. 3, 16.) After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 6, 2018. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff's complaint was screened on April 18, 2018 and findings and recommendations were filed. (ECF No. 18.) The undersigned found that Plaintiff had stated a claim against Defendants Ahlin and Price in their official capacity for a condition of confinement and deprivation of property claim for implementing the amendments to section 4350 and a claim that the regulation is overly broad by prohibiting devices that are not capable of connecting to the internet and have no memory storage ability and recommended that all remaining claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id.)

The Attorney General filed a response to Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction on April 30, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) On May 15, 2018, findings and recommendations issued recommending denying Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 22.) On July 19, 2018, Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill (since retired) issued an order adopting in full the findings and recommendations recommending denying Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction and adopting in part the screening findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 27.) The order found that Plaintiff had stated a substantive due process claim against Defendants Ahlin and Price in their official capacities for implementing the amendments to section 4350 and Plaintiff was ordered to either file a second amended complaint or notify the court that he wished to proceed on the cognizable claims and Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. (Id.)

After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on September 20, 2018. (ECF No. 31.) On September 28, 2018, findings and recommendations issued. (ECF No. 32.) The findings and recommendations recommended that this action proceed against Defendants Ahlin and Price for substantive due process violations of the Fourteenth Amendment based on the allegations that the amendment to section 4350 is punitive in nature and the regulation is overly broad as it prohibits devices not capable of connecting to the internet or having memorystorage capability; and on the procedural due process claim against Defendant Price for implementing a policy more restrictive than section 4350, and that all other claims be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id.)

On November 9, 2018, Chief Judge O'Neill adopted in part the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 35.) This action proceeded against Defendants Ahlin and Price in their official capacity for implementing the amendments to section 4350 in violation of substantive due process. (Id. at 3.)

On January 25, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a request for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 44, 45.) On March 14, 2019, findings and recommendations issued recommending denying Defendants motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 49.) On May 8, 2019, Chief Judge O'Neill adopted the findings and recommendations and Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. (ECF No. 55.) Defendants filed an answer on May 28, 2019. (ECF No. 56.) On May 29, 2019, the discovery and scheduling order issued setting pretrial deadlines. (ECF No. 57.)

On February 21, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings and a request for judicial notice. (ECF No. 62.)

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed Williams III, No. 1:20-cv-00312-JLT against Defendants Price, Ahlin, Arron...