Carroll v. Read, Case No. CV 10-6964-CJC (DTB)

Decision Date12 April 2012
Docket NumberCase No. CV 10-6964-CJC (DTB)
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California
PartiesVERNON D. CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER S. READ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Currently pending before the Court and ready for decision is defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("Motion"). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint ("Compl.") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 28, 2010, after being granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff included various attachments ("Compl. Att.") with the Complaint. As best the Court could glean, the gravamen of the Complaint was that defendants violated plaintiff's civil rights by harassing him and subjecting him to an invasive strip search while he was housed at the California Rehabilitation Center ("CRC") in Norco, California. Named in the Complaint asdefendants in both their individual and official capacities were the following CRC employees: Correctional Officers S. Read ("Read") and Ellis; Warden Gray Sandor ("Sandor"); Captain M.J. Dimmitt ("Dimmitt"); Lieutenant D. Caplan ("Caplan"); and Hearing Officer G. Lares ("Lares").

On October 6, 2010, after screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on the grounds that plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to state a § 1983 claim for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities and insufficient to state a claim based on supervisory liability.

On November 3, 2010, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). On the same date, plaintiff filed a "Motion to: Order to Amend Complaint on Some Allegd [sic] Defendant(s) under [Immune]" ("Motion to Amend"); "Motion to: Reconsider the Order of Amend not for the Relief of the Other Defendant. But a Order from the Honorable to Place an Order to Remove the 115 Written [Reprisal] Under Cover up for c/o S. Read and Retaliation" ("Motion to Reconsider"); "Motion to: Re-amend and Still Pending of Claim for Relief" ("Motion to Re-amend"); and "Motion for: Order 'Summons' Service of Subsequent Papers" ("Motion to Serve"). In an Order dated November 17, 2010, the Court denied the Motion to Amend, the Motion to Re-amend, and the Motion to Serve. The Court granted the Motion to Reconsider, struck the FAC, and modified the October 6, 2010 Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. On November 17, 2010, the Court ordered the Complaint served on all defendants in their individual capacities only.

On June 23, 2011, defendants filed the instant Motion, together with a supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities ("Mot. Mem."), on the grounds that: (1) Defendants are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for damages in their official capacities; (2) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3) the Complaint fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; (4)the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief; and (5) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed numerous briefs and motions, most of which are not relevant for purposes of this Motion. On October 17, 2011, plaintiff filed six documents entitled "Motion for: Judgment on Pleadings and Agreement on Summary Judgment under Consideration on Fact" (collectively, "Motions for Judgment"). Thereafter, the Court construed the Motion for Judgment at Docket No. 47 as plaintiff's Opposition ("Opp.") to the Motion. Plaintiff included various attachments ("Opp. Att.") to the Opposition. On October 31, 2011, the Court denied the remaining Motions for Judgment to the extent plaintiff intended such documents to be construed as Motions for Summary Judgment. On January 31, 2012, defendants' filed a Reply ("Reply") in support of the Motion.1

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the formal sufficiency of a statement of claim for relief. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) Lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended).2 In determining whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, its allegations of material fact must be takenas true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended); see also Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Further, since plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the allegations of the complaint liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 611 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that it is particularly important to construe pleadings liberally where the litigant is a pro se prisoner in a civil rights action). However, "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Moreover, with respect to plaintiff's pleading burden, the Supreme Court has held that:

[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted and alteration in original). In other words, the allegations must be plausible on the face of the complaint. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The Supreme Court has held that:

The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has actedunlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'"

Id. (citations omitted); see also Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) ("for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory 'factual content,' and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief") (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). In assessing the merits of a motion to dismiss, courts may consider documents attached to the complaint. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co. Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended).

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that, on February 5, 2010, as he was exiting the law library at CRC, defendants Read and Ellis stopped him to conduct a clothed body search. (Compl. at 5; Compl. Att. at 1, 6.) Read and Ellis then allegedly conducted two unclothed body searches, and ordered plaintiff to expose his buttocks to them. (Compl. Att. at 3, 6.) When plaintiff asked Read why he was conducting the searches, he responded, "[b]ecause I can do that." (Compl. Att. at 6.) Plaintiff also heard one of the defendants say, "[s]hut the fuck up." (Compl. at 5.)

Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance regarding the strip searches, alleging that defendants Read and Ellis's behavior constituted sexual abuse. (Compl. Att. at 13.) It appears that an inquiry was conducted on or about February 24, 2010, and thereafter, Associate Warden, K. Peters, determined that there was no staff misconduct regarding the alleged searches. (Compl. Att. at 3, 8, 41.)

Meanwhile, plaintiff apparently withdrew his administrative grievance due to an agreement with defendant Read, whereby Read agreed to provide plaintiff with certain personal items in exchange for the withdrawal of the grievance. (Compl. Att.at 35, 43-44; Opp. Att. at 1.) When Read did not provide plaintiff with the requested items, plaintiff attempted to reinstate his earlier grievance. (Compl. Att. at 43-44.) However, it appears that, on May 13, 2010, in response to plaintiff's request to reinstate his grievance, defendants Dimmitt and Caplan issued plaintiff a CDC-115 write-up ("CDC 115") for falsification of an inmate appeal, allegedly in retaliation for the filing of the earlier grievance alleging sexual misconduct. (Compl. Att. at 1, 3, 6, 25.) The CDC-115 alleged that plaintiff falsified the agreement between Read and himself. (Comp. Att. at 25.)

Thereafter, plaintiff received a hearing regarding the CDC-115 wherein defendant Lares allegedly denied plaintiff due process by "covering up" for the other defendants. (Compl. Att. at 3, 7.) Plaintiff was ultimately found guilty of the rules violation, and alleges that he lost 60 days of sentencing credit. (Comp. Att. at 7; Opp. Att. at 1-5.)

Based upon theses allegations, plaintiff claims violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. (Compl. Att. at 1.)

DISCUSSION
I. The Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against the named defendants in their official capacities.

Defendants initially contend that they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for damages in their official capacities. (Mot. Mem. at 3.) While plaintiff initially sued defendants in their official and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT