Barrett v. Ciolli, 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC)

• Decision Date: 12 July 2021
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC)
• Citation: Barrett v. Ciolli, 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul 12, 2021)
• Parties: ANTHONY BARRETT, Plaintiff, v. A. CIOLLI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

ANTHONY BARRETT, Plaintiff, v. A. CIOLLI, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 12, 2021

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH AMENDMENT AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS AGAINST MRS. RODRIGUEZ AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20 AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

(ECF No. 16)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Plaintiff Anthony Curtis Barrett (“Plaintiff”) is a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 22 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On April 5, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that it failed to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8.) The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either “a. File a First Amended Complaint; or b. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id. at 16.) On February 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9.)

On May 4, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and entered findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claims for deprivation of property and deprivation of liberty without due process and on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Doe defendants. (ECF No. 10.) The Court further recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.)

On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Court's findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff's objections contained new factual allegations that were not included in the original complaint or the First Amended Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 1, 9.) However, the Court could not consider factual allegations in Plaintiff's objections in deciding whether Plaintiff stated any legal claims. The Court therefore entered an order on May 24, 2021, granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) The Court's order explained that it was not vacating the findings and recommendations entered on May 4, 2021 at that time but may do so if Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Id.) On June 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) In light of the Second Amended Complaint, the Court vacated the findings and recommendations entered on May 4, 2021. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is now before this Court for screening.

For the reasons that follow, the Court will recommend that this action proceed on Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim for deprivation of property without due process against Mrs Rodriguez and John/Jane Does 1 through 5, Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim for deprivation of liberty without due process against John/Jane Does 6 through 10, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement against John/Jane Does 11 through 15, and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against John/Jane Does 16 through 20. The Court will also recommend that all other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations to file his objections.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates 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 inmate 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). As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may also screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. “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)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiffs 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) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiffs legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff names Lt. Scott, Mr. Young, Mrs. Rodriguez, A. Ciolli, and John and Jane Does as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint alleges as follows:

Deprivation of Property

On March 9, 2020, prison staff seized Plaintiff's personal property while conducting an inventory during a lockdown of Unit 2A. Most of the seized property was perishable food, personal hygiene, a solar powered radio, and other personal property. All items were purchased from the prison commissary and could be safely stored in the locker furnished to him by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. On March 8, 2020, prison staff sent out a memo stating that all personal property must be placed in a green duffle bag. On March 9, 2020, prison staff came and had inmates place their property in the green duffle bag. Prison staff told inmates not to take any personal property with them when exiting the cell, including any personal clothing, watches, wallets, mailing stamps, shoes, radios, mp3 players, etc. Inmates had to exit their cells dressed in a white t-shirt, khaki pants, one pair of boxers, and shower shoes. Prison officials failed to document the inmates' personal property correctly and they did not document what was taken. Prison staff took Plaintiff's personal property and forced him to sign incomplete property forms under threat and duress.

Plaintiff asked for the return of his property and sent requests to Lt. Cobbs for the return of his personal property. Plaintiff never received a response from Lt. Cobbs. Plaintiff also sent claims to the Federal Bureau of Prisons Regional and Central Offices and those claims were denied. As a prisoner, Plaintiff has a protected right and interest in his personal property and Plaintiff's property was taken deliberately to punish him for other inmates' acts. This was clearly an unfair practice by the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff and officials.

The green duffle bag was 16” in depth and 42” in length and totaled approximately 6.2 feet in square measurement. This green duffle bag was only used to take inmate's property. Prison staff knew that the green duffle bag was smaller than the inmates' assigned lockers. The assigned lockers were in each inmates' cell and were the same size, measuring approximately 24” in width, 18” in depth, and 40” in height, equaling approximately 10.8 feet in square measurement. Each officer and prison official participated in an unlawful confiscation of Plaintiff's personal property and violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights. They had no reason whatsoever to confiscate Plaintiff's personal property.

Inmates store their personal property in the assigned lockers and not in a green duffle bag. The green duffle bag was only used for this particular occasion in order to take inmates' personal property. Plaintiff did not have any choice but to comply with the orders given to him and he was not provided an opportunity to store his personal property or send it home on his behalf. Prison officials and staff took and enjoyed Plaintiff's personal property. A. Ciolli deprived Plaintiff of his property and liberty without due process and with unconstitutional conditions of confinement. When Plaintiff returned to his unit, he witnessed some of his personal property in the officers' station. Plaintiff asked one of the officers working the unit to return his personal property and the officer stated that the property was a perk of the job. On the day of this search, there were many different officers and prison officials and it was almost impossible to get names. The Superintendent of Education had Plaintiff sign an incomplete property form and was also part of the search team that took personal property.

The search was only conducted to take inmates' personal property and was not done according to policy. Plaintiff's personal property was taken by prison staff and officials under the guise of a search. Prison staff and officials...