Camposeco v. Bordeaux
| Decision Date | 31 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No.: 1:19-cv-01330 BAM (PC),: 1:19-cv-01330 BAM (PC) |
| Parties | SAMUAL CAMPOSECO, Plaintiff, v. MIKE BORDEAUX, et. al, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF No. 18.)
Plaintiff Samuel Camposeco is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on July 20, 2020, is currently before the Court. (ECF No. 18.)
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b); 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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)). 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 survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff is currently housed at Bob Wiley Detention Center in Visalia, California. The events in the amended complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee housed there. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Mike Boudreaux, Tulare County Sheriff/Coroner; (2) Jason Villarreal, Pro Per Facilitator/Lieutenant; (3) Julie Stamper, Pro Per Liaison Officer/Sergeant, (4) Jose Villasenor, Deputy Sheriff, (5) Cory Jones, Facility Lieutenant, (6) Matthew O'Rafferty, Sergeant, (7) Dario Davalos, Sergeant. Each person is sued in their individual and official capacities.
In Claim I, Plaintiff asserts a violation of his right to access to the courts. Plaintiff alleges as follows. On August 19, 2019, Defendant Stamper and Jones viewed the contents of Plaintiff 128GB flash drive that contained privileged and confidential materials, which was legal mail.The contents included correspondence between Erin Brooks, investigator Daniel Garcia, Investigator Suzanne La Mar, Investigator Thomas Edmonds and Plaintiff. It contained a HIPPA release forms, detailed reports of counsel who provided the flash drive while appointed as advisory counsel. It contained information he had disclosed to his attorney such as alibi witnesses, information and work product, including interviewed of alibi. Plaintiff contends that there was all kind of confidential information on the flash drive, such as names and address, reports of interviews, medical information. Both Defendants Stamper and Jones viewed several folders, files, videos, and other content without Plaintiff's authorization and consent and without Plaintiff being present. They determined that the flash drive contained contraband and rejected the jump/flash drive. Plaintiff had the same jump/flash drive in his possession for 3 months. Plaintiff alleges that his trial was continued and the judge said Plaintiff was entitled to the flash/jump drive. Plaintiff did not have the drive for months and trial was continued. Defendant Villarreal said the actions were justified under their policy in his response to Plaintiff's grievance. Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Sherriff Boudreaux and did not get a response.
In Claim II, Plaintiff asserts a violation of 6th Amendment right to confer on a confidential basis with his counsel and self-representation. Plaintiff's rights were violated when Defendant Stamper and Jones viewed the contents of Plaintiff flash/jump drive that contained privileged and confidential material. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Villarreal also violated his 6th Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleges that "this deprivation did not allow the plaintiff to build or conduct his defense" since he was deprived of his jump/flash drive. This drive was delivered by Plaintiff's prior attorney Erin Brooks in April 2019 who was appointed as advisory counsel and any material on it was confidential and privileged mail. Plaintiff's trial has been continued for three months and still continued because of the pandemic. Plaintiff later received the contents of the flash drive through his private investigator.
In Claim III, Plaintiff asserts First Amendment right to be free from retaliation. On October 3, 2019, Officer Saare had Plaintiff's informa pauperis papers and said that DefendantStamper wanted to know who Plaintiff is suing. Plaintiff refused but ultimately told Officer Saare who Plaintiff was suing in this lawsuit. Plaintiff was taken to the law library. Plaintiff had 2 CD's containing confidential information from his attorney and he only received 1 CD. He told Officer Saare and Sergeant Davalos that his staff has lost his CD. Several thorough searches were conducted of Plaintiff's person, personal property and area. Plaintiff was put in a holding cell and "patted down vigorously" and Defendant Villa senor began reading Plaintiff's legal material on Plaintiff's person saying, "I'm scanning, it, I can do that." Villasenor accused Plaintiff of concealing drugs and the CD in his "butt" and "don't you shove stuff in your butt" and was padding down the Plaintiff, cropped the Plaintiff's left buttock in a circular manner, stretched his boxer and pants in an outward direction exposing his buttocks for a visual cavity search without Plaintiff's consent. Plaintiff told him "don't touch me like that" and he feared he would be assaulted if he resisted. Both Defendant Villarreal and Davalos were observing and did nothing. Homosexual comments were made after this incident on the same day. Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation without being placed on contraband surveillance watch. If he was a danger to himself, Plaintiff should have been placed on contraband watch.
In Claim IV, Plaintiff asserts retaliation for pursuing litigation. He alleges as follows. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff received 2 disciplinary infractions from Defendant Villasenor which were approved by Defendant Davalos. They resulted in 2 10-day loss of privileges because of the incident regarding his informa pauperis and theft of his CD. On October 7, 2019, Villasenor and Defendant O'Rafferty retaliated by imposing an additional 30 days. Plaintiff alleged O'Rafferty provided a hearing regarding the additional 30 days but Plaintiff was not alleged to present evidence or witnesses. O'Rafferty manipulated the computer system which records disciplinary infractions. He allowed deputies who were not named in the committee for Plaintiff to sign as though they were there and denied evidence Plaintiff presented. Defendant Villarreal later overturned the 30-day loss of privilege.
In Claim V, Plaintiff complains that he was retaliated against for pursuing litigation. OnOctober 22, 2019, Defendant Stamper gave deputies under her supervision, Saare, Nelson, Calderon, a copy of Plaintiff's order of payment directed to the detention payment from the district court. Plaintiff was escorted to the law library and after the library, retaliation began. Plaintiff's cell was searched and left in disarray, resulting in a disciplinary infraction, and was written up for having a hot water device called a "stinger" He received an infraction when no other inmate received one for using a stinger which is a common practice for inmates. This is a campaign of harassment, approved by Villarreal, as Plaintiff received 30 day loss of privilege.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Stamper, Jones and Villarreal violated his Due Process by intentionally depriving Plaintiff of the jump/flash drive on October 3, 2019 which contained confidential correspondence and documents between his counsel, advisory counsel and private investigators. Defendants are aware that Plaintiff had 16 blue ray discs transferred to the jump/flash drive for his case because the facility did not have the proper equipment to read blue ray discs. The contents were legal mail under federal regulations and their policy to inspect anything arriving into the jail means an inmate must be present when privileged and confidential materials are opened. They reviewed the device without Plaintiff's knowledge and consent and rejected the jump/flashdrive without informing Plaintiff or providing a hearing.
Plaintiff alleges that his right to Due Process was violated by Defendant Villarreal and Defendant Davalos and Defendant Stamper when he was placed in administrative segregation on October 3, 2010 without advance notice, or being informed of the charges or opportunity to rebut the administrative segregation. Plaintiff alleges this was in retaliation for voicing his...
To continue reading
Request your trial