Carr v. Alcala
| Decision Date | 19 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:14-cv-01823-LJO-SAB-PC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | CLAUDE CARR, Plaintiff, v. M. ALCALA, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
This action proceeds on the March 23, 2015, second amended complaint, filed in response to the February 19, 2015, dismissing the first amended complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran, brings this lawsuit against correctional officials employed by the CDCR at CSP Corcoran. In the first amended complaint and in the second amended complaint now before the Court, Plaintiff names as Defendants Mailroom Supervisor M. Alcala, Correctional Counselor J. Sasso, and Associate Warden J. Collins.
In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on May 15, 2014, he mailed a civil rights complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As of July 6, 2014, Plaintiff had not received any confirmation that the complaint had been received or filed. On July 9, 2014, the court confirmed that it had not received a complaint from Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance, and was interviewed at the first level of review by Defendant Alcala. Although Alcala denied Plaintiff's grievance, he did agree that Plaintiff placed the complaint in the mail. Plaintiff's appeal was denied at the second level by Defendant Sasso. Plaintiff claimed that he was denied access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment and that Defendants subjected him to a denial of equal protection and due process. In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff again sets forth claims of access to courts, equal protection, and due process.
Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires "actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation." Nevada Dep't of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011)(citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348)(internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v.Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415(2002).
Plaintiff was advised of the above standard in the February 19, 2015, screening order. (ECF No. 18, 3:10.) Plaintiff failed to allege any facts in the first amended complaint suggesting conduct by Alcala that interfered with Plaintiff's ability to file his lawsuit. In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff re-states the allegations of the original complaint, but fails to allege any specific conduct by Alcala indicating that he intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's ability to litigate. The only conduct charged to Alcala is that he denied Plaintiff's grievance at the first level, but agreed that Plaintiff did indeed mail the complaint. In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff adds no new facts. Plaintiff indicates that Alcala must be responsible because he was the mailroom supervisor at the time.
Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a government official cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead that the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at 673. In other words, to state claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must allege facts linking Defendant Alcala with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff's federal rights. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. There are no facts alleged indicating that Alcala engaged in any specific conduct that frustrated Plaintiff's ability to pursue his lawsuit. This claim should therefore be dismissed.
The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated should be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Shakur v. Schiriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). A plaintiff may establish an equal protection claim by showing that the plaintiff was intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his membership in a protected class. Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 960, 702-03 (9th Cir. 2009); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 601-02 (2008); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008).
In the February 19, 2015, screening order, Plaintiff was advised of the above standard. (ECF No. 18, 4:13.) Plaintiff was advised that the had not alleged any facts suggesting that he was intentionally discriminated against based upon his membership in a protected class, nor had Plaintiff alleged any facts indicating that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff fails to correct this deficiency. The only conduct charged to any of the Defendants is their participation in the grievance process. This claim should therefore bedismissed.
"The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake." Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005). Plaintiff does not have a protected liberty interest in processing his appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v.Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)(citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff was advised of this in the February 19, 2015, screening order. (ECF No. 18, 4:26.) In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jasso improperly denied his grievance on the ground that it contained multiple issues. The only conduct charged to Defendant Jasso is his participation in the inmate grievance process. This claim should therefore be dismissed.
As to Associate Warden Collins, Plaintiff has not alleged any conduct. As noted above, a supervisory official cannot be held liable under section 1983 for the conduct of their subordinates. Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 673. In order to hold Associate Warden Collins liable, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he personally participated in the deprivation at issue. Plaintiff has failed to allege any conduct as to Defendant Collins. Associate Warden Collins should therefore be dismissed.
By order filed February 19, 2015, the Court dismissed the first amended complaint for Plaintiff's failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified by the Court. In the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial