Forbelthinn v. Williams
| Decision Date | 24 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | CV21-6403-JLS(E) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | CLINTON FORBELTHINN, Plaintiff, v. J. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. |
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
For the reasons discussed below, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff sues prison officials at Plaintiff's place of incarceration, the California State Prison, Los Angeles County ("CSP-LAC"). Defendants are: (1) correctional officers J. Williams, D. Lewis and J. Rose; (2) "the higher immediate supervisor" R.C Johnson; and (3) Lieutenant Dessenberger. Plaintiff sues all Defendants in their official and individual capacities.
The Complaint is not a model of clarity. Plaintiff's handwriting is difficult to decipher, and the Complaint contains exhibits the significance of which is uncertain. The Complaint contains three claims for relief, for: (1) alleged violation of due process; (2) alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (3) alleged violation of Plaintiff's asserted right to "immediate medical care" (Complaint, ECF Dkt. No. 1, pp. 15-17).[1] Plaintiff alleges as follows:
Plaintiff is a "refugee political prisoner" who "falls under American jurisdiction" (id., p. 12). On September 5, 2019, at approximately 8:45 a.m., Plaintiff was standing in the "far yard" with books and stationery, waiting for the "D yard" library to open (id., pp. 6, 15). Plaintiff walked to the D yard "D3 block" and was approached by Defendant Williams and another correctional officer not named as a Defendant (id., p. 12). Plaintiff was asked what Plaintiff was doing (id., p. 12). Plaintiff responded that he was waiting to go to the library (id., p. 12). Plaintiff attempted to walk toward the "D3 building" with his back "turned to the Defendant" [presumably Defendant Williams] (id.). "Defendant" attacked Plaintiff "with a criminal state of mind" and took Plaintiff to the ground, using excessive force (id.). Plaintiff's head hit the concrete pad and his arms were "at full extension" on the ground (id., pp. 12-13). Plaintiff was not resisting, but was following a direct order (id., p. 13). Plaintiff refers to video evidence (id.). Defendant Williams did not act to restore order (id.). Rather, Williams acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm (id. Plaintiff suffered injuries to his head, arms shoulders and back (id., p. 16).
After the assault, Plaintiff was seen briefly by a nurse, who logged Plaintiff's injuries on a paper form (id., p. 17). Plaintiff's injuries were visible and more serious than initially thought (id.). Plaintiff's shoulders were extremely painful, and he could not raise his arms over his head (id.). Plaintiff was denied medical attention by a doctor (id.). Physiotherapy treatment was delayed (id.).
On the day of the assault, Plaintiff was "clearly on the list" to use the library, and was waiting to do so with his books and stationery (id., p. 15). Several times previously, Defendant Williams had stopped Plaintiff from going to the library (id.). Williams and other unidentified correctional officers violated due process by interfering with Plaintiff's right to "get [Plaintiff's] 'deprivation of rights' to get heard by the co's and unable to attend the library because [Plaintiff] was not called" (id.). Plaintiff has a right to "pursue [Plaintiff's] case in courts and have access on a regular basis to the library without delay" (id.). Plaintiff "continuously" has been deprived of his constitutional right of access to the courts (|d). Plaintiff's legal materials were lost and destroyed due to the "violence of the excessive force" (id.).
Plaintiff also has been denied immediate medical care (id., p 17). Plaintiff saw a doctor on July 28, and an x-ray was performed the next day (id.). At a follow-up visit on August 28, Plaintiff was prescribed medication, and a "consult for ongoing therapy" was recommended (id.). Plaintiff also refers to a "consult for mental health" (id.). On November 19, 2018, doctors "officially diagnosed" Plaintiff, as set forth in the doctors' notes (id.). Delays in medical care, including delays in "physio and doctors appts and prescriptions," violated Plaintiff's constitutional right (id.).
The Complaint also contains unclear references to: (1) the exhaustion requirement for prisoners' lawsuits (see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)); (2) Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009) ( that a state statute diverting prisoner suits against correctional officers to a court of limited jurisdiction violated the Supremacy Clause); and (3) Kremerv. Chem. Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) (discussing federal courts' obligation to give preclusive effect to a state court judgment upholding an administrative agency's rejection of an employment discrimination claim) (Complaint, pp. 13-14).
In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff states:
[There are] several complicated rules concerning 1983 lawsuits .... that seek damages for a prison rule violation .... A person convicted of ... a rule violation [for] 'obstructing a peace officer' cannot seek damages for 'excessive force' [unless] the disciplinary violation is first overturned via direct appeal" (id., p. 7).
Plaintiff seeks an injunction "to stop others from doing something . .. such as searching of cells and ... in person screening coming in and out of building" (id.). Plaintiff appears to request an extension of the statute of limitations, although this request is unclear (see id.). Plaintiff also requests compensatory and punitive damages (id.).
Plaintiff attaches to the Complaint various related and unrelated documents, including:
1. A page from a Rules Violation Report, appearing to charge Plaintiff with willfully resisting a peace officer in the performance of duties on September 5, 2019, and indicating that, on that Dated: (a) the author of the report and Defendant Williams allegedly observed Plaintiff "out of bounds on the North Yard" and ordered Plaintiff back to his cell; (b) Plaintiff assertedly responded, "I'm not going fucking back to my cell I'm going to canteen"; (c) Plaintiff allegedly refused Defendant Williams' order to submit to handcuffing, instead assertedly backing up and raising his fists up to his chest; (d) the officers took hold of Plaintiff's wrists and put their hands on Plaintiff's upper back or shoulder; (e) the officers allegedly used their physical strength and body weight to push Plaintiff to the ground; (f) Plaintiff landed on his stomach in a prone position; (g) the officers allegedly put Plaintiff's arms behind his back; and (h) Plaintiff allegedly was placed in restraints and escorted out of the yard (Complaint, p. 6);
2. Documents concerning Plaintiff's appeal in Appeal Log No. 28287, in which Plaintiff allegedly stated that he was the victim of excessive force on September 5, 2019 (id., pp. 8, 27-28, 31);
3. A document stating that Plaintiff's appeal was "disapproved" on May 21, 2021 (id., p. 9);[2]
4. A document titled "Appeal of Grievance," which is illegible (id., p. 10);
5. Documents concerning Plaintiff's alleged appeal in Appeal Log Number 109592, in which Plaintiff assertedly complained that he had not received a package (id., pp. 22-26, 49);
6. A document concerning Plaintiff's health care appeal in Tracking No. LAC HC 20002139, stating that the Health Care Services Office had accepted Plaintiff's grievance for response (id., p. 30);
7. Documents concerning Plaintiff's appeal in Appeal Log No. 000000126259, including a document showing the alleged rejection of the appeal as duplicative, with the notation "WANTS TO RECEIVE VISITS, DUPLICATE TO LOG 117250" (id. pp. 32-33, 36-39);
8. A document titled "Tattoo Removal Application Form," in which Plaintiff apparently requested the removal of tattoos (id., p. 40);
9. An alleged letter to Plaintiff from the Office of the Inspector General, dated December 29, 2020, assertedly responding to Plaintiff's complaint of alleged excessive force on September 5, 2019 (id., pp. 41-42);
10. An alleged letter to Plaintiff from the California State Auditor, dated November 5, 2020, assertedly responding to Plaintiff's alleged complaint of "an improper governmental activity" within the prison (id., pp. 43-44);
11. Documents concerning Plaintiff's health care appeal in Tracking No. LAC HC 21000479, allegedly concerning Plaintiff's medications (id. pp. 45-46, 48);
12. Two letters to Plaintiff from a law firm, dated January 25, 2021 and June 14, 2021 (id. pp. 50-51);
13. A letter to Plaintiff from the California Department of General Services, dated December 23, 2020, stating that Plaintiff's claim allegedly was incomplete (id., p. 52);
14. Two documents titled "Authorization for Release of Protected Health Information," apparently signed by Plaintiff (id., pp. 53, 55); and
15. Two documents titled "CSP-LAC Medical Records Department Mental Health File Review," apparently completed by Plaintiff (id., pp. 54, 56).
Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Each allegation must be simple, concise and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Conclusory allegations are insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 686 (2009). "Experience teaches that unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court's docket becomes unmanageable, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial