Aguilar v. Carpio, 1:17-cv-01190-DAD-GSA-PC
| Decision Date | 17 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:17-cv-01190-DAD-GSA-PC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | ALEXIS AGUILAR, Plaintiff, v. D. CARPIO, et al. |
FIRST SCREENING ORDER
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF No. 1.)
Alexis Aguilar ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)
The Complaint is now before the court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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 or malicious," 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).
A complaint is required to 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)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, California. The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff names as defendants D. Carpio (Mail Room Supervisor), Captain E. Schuyler (Mail Room), E. Garcia (Chief Deputy Warden, CCI), K. Holland (Warden, CCI), and Jefferey Beard (Secretary, CDCR) (collectively, "Defendants").
Plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff was housed at CCI from September 12, 2014 to December 1, 2015. Plaintiff subscribed to a publication titled Artnews from April 2013 through September 2015. Compl. at 3 ¶ 10. Artnews is an art magazine published since 1902, with art ranging from prehistoric to more contemporary art, published eleven times per year.
On June 28, 2015, Plaintiff realized that his Artnews issues of February 2015 and June 2015 had not been delivered to him. Plaintiff submitted a form 22 request-for-interview addressed to defendant Carpio and asked her to send Plaintiff the 1819 form (Notification of Disapproval Mail/Packages/Publications CDCR 1819). Defendant Carpio was in violation of CDCR regulations and the DOM (Department Operations Manual) for failing to timely notify Plaintiff that his mail was withheld. On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff received a response from defendant Carpio, informing him that the 1819 form for the February 2015 Artnews was attached, with her explanation of why the issue was withheld. The 1819 form was dated February 13, 2015, but Plaintiff had not seen or received it in February. Defendant Carpio had signed the form February 13, 2015 as the date being "forwarded to inmate." Compl. at 4 ¶ 13. In addition, the form listed him as being housed in B-8B-210, but Plaintiff did not move into cell B-8B-210 until June 4, 2015, and he did not receive the 1819 form in February. Defendant Schuyler authorized denial of the publication. Defendant Carpio, by her actions, deprived Plaintiff of prompt notice that the Artnews publication was withheld, caused Plaintiff to be denied a timely review by someone other than the censor of the rejected material, and falsely claimed that she sent the notice timely.
Defendants C. Schuyler, E. Garcia, and K. Holland violated Plaintiff's right to receive publications, and rights to due process guaranteed to the plaintiff by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, by their failure to adequately supervise the Mail Room Supervisor subordinate to them, defendant Carpio. Supervisory defendants, C. Schuyler, E. Garcia, K. Holland, and J. Beard, have a duty to establish policies and procedures for the administration of CCI. They have a duty to perform and execute their duties in a manner consistent with state and federal law, to train and supervise subordinate employees. They failed to ensure that all staff followed departmental procedural policy, state and federal law. They also failed to ensure that Plaintiff was being treated humanely and free from retaliation, interference with his litigation, harassment, intimidation, and intentional interference with incoming and outgoing correspondence.
///
///
On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a form 602 appeal explaining why he should receive the withheld magazine. On July 2, 2015, Plaintiff received notification that the 602 was cancelled for exceeding time constraints. Appeals coordinator M. Dailo [not a defendant] notified Plaintiff that Compl. at 5 ¶ 15. Plaintiff filed another 602 based on the wrongful cancellation of the appeal and explained that defendant Carpio sent him the 1819 form on that date, forged the document, and made it appear as if it was sent in February 2015. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff was interviewed telephonically by Appeals Coordinator J. Zanchi [not a defendant]. Plaintiff explained to Zanchi about the timeliness issue of the appeal and Zanchi told Plaintiff he would receive a response. The appeal was denied at the Second level of review by defendant E. Garcia. Plaintiff pursued the appeal to the highest level, exhausting his remedies.
On July 3, 2015, Plaintiff received a 1819 form dated July 2, 2015, informing him that the publication Juxtapoz was on the Centralized Disapproved Publications List (Banned List). Compl. at 5 ¶ 19. On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 602 appeal because he disagreed with this outright blanket ban. The 602 was returned to Plaintiff on July 30, 2015 and Plaintiff again submitted it on July 30, 2015, by giving it to the officers conducting mail pick-up. The Appeals Coordinator accepted the appeal, assigned it log no. CCI-0-15-01635, and assigned a due date of October 18, 2015. Plaintiff followed up on the appeal and was told on October 6, 2015 by Zanchi that the appeal "was completed on October 6, 2015 and mailed to you via institutional mail." Compl. at 6 ¶¶ 24-27. Plaintiff did not receive it and followed up with correctional counselor Vaca [not a defendant] and appeals coordinators Zanchi and Spears [not defendants] and was given a copy of the 602 from his file on October 16, 2015. Plaintiff noticed that the 602 copy was incomplete -- pages were missing -- and informed Spears, who looked for the pages and could not find them.///
On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 602 asking for an investigation of the disappearance of the Juxtapoz appeal. On October 28, 2015, the October 15th appeal was granted and Plaintiff received a "treat as original" copy of the Juxtapoz appeal. However, Plaintiff noticed that Zanchi did not conduct the investigation and neglected to interview Plaintiff face-to-face. Plaintiff pursued the October 15th appeal to the highest level of review, exhausting his remedies.
Juxtapoz Appeal, continued
Plaintiff noticed on his copy of the Juxtapoz appeal that it was assigned to "OPS" and defendant Carpio was tasked with conducting an interview. Compl. at 8 ¶ 39. Defendant Carpio falsely noted on the appeal that she had conducted an interview with Plaintiff on September 18, 2017 in the "H.U." (Housing Unit). Compl. at 8 ¶ 39. Plaintiff did not receive such interview.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Carpio "retaliated, harassed, intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's grievance correspondence, and discarded his correspondence [b]ecause Plaintiff exercised his First Amendment rights to file a grievance, receive correspondence, [and] exercised his free speech by filing a grievance." Compl. at 8 ¶ 40. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Carpio harmed Plaintiff and chilled his First Amendment rights, with Carpio's conduct not undertaken to advance a legitimate penological interest.
The appeals coordinator noted on the appeal that the appeal was delivered to Plaintiff on October 7, 2015, not October 6, 2015 as Zanchi had claimed. Defendant E. Garcia denied the appeal. Plaintiff submitted the appeal to the third level reviewer on October 28, 2015. In January 2016, Plaintiff received notice that the appeal was cancelled for exceeding time constraints.
Plaintiff filed appeal Log no. 15-05228 explaining that the cancellation of the Juxtapoz publication was made in...
To continue reading
Request your trial