Fuentes v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:17-cv-00745-EPG (PC) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | JONATHAN FUENTES, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION HOLDING CORPORATION REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Defendants. |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANT G. RODRIGUEZ ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, FOR AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, FOR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FOR ASSAULT, AND FOR BATTERY, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
Jonathan Fuentes ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 30, 2017. (ECF No. 1). The Court issued an order finding certain claims cognizable, and gave Plaintiff an option to file an amended complaint, proceed on the cognizable claims, or stand on his complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (ECF No. 8).
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on February 26, 2018. (ECF No. 9). The allegations in the First Amended Complaint relate to a digital search for contraband at Wasco State Prison Reception Center, and Defendants' actions before and after that search.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and recommends allowing certain of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant G. Rodriguez to proceed past the screening stage. The Court recommends dismissing all other claims and defendants with prejudice. Plaintiff has twenty-one days to file objections to these findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners 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 prisoner 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 (ECF No. 6), 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 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). Additionally, a plaintiff's 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) ().
Plaintiff alleges that, on October 24, 2016, he was assigned cell number 250, which was confined general population at Wasco State Prison-Reception Center. His cellmate was Duran, CDCR No. F-58443. That day, several correctional officers and a sergeant came to the building to conduct cell searches. At about 9:20 am, Defendant G. Rodriguez came to Plaintiff's cell door and directed him and his cell mate to unclothe down to boxers and shower shoes, and then instructed them to "turn around and cuff up."
On the way down the stairs, Defendant G. Rodriguez pushed plaintiff against the wall next to the c/o office. Defendant G. Rodriguez used vulgarity and lifted Plaintiff's cuffed arms behind him, causing pain to Plaintiff's right shoulder and wrist. Plaintiff alleges this was unprovoked and was malicious and sadistic.
Defendant G. Rodriguez then conducted a body cavity search in front of numerous inmates and correctional officers. Plaintiff alleges this was unreasonable because he was handcuffed and could not get rid of any evidence. Defendant G. Rodriguez reached inside Plaintiff's buttocks, digitally. When Plaintiff asked what he was doing, Defendant G. Rodriguez said "shut up turn around, and shut up."
Defendant M. Venegas had an opportunity to intervene and prevent this intrusive cavity search but failed to do so.
Defendant G. Rodriguez found alleged contraband hidden in Plaintiff's buttocks and turned it over to Defendant M. Venegas. Plaintiff continued to verbally complain about the search.
Plaintiff was then escorted to the program office cell cage. Plaintiff complained to theofficers' supervisors, E. Venegas and E. Rivera. Plaintiff was interviewed by 2 unknown officers of the Investigative Services Unit. Plaintiff was advised if he proceeded, he would be placed in Administrative Segregation.
Plaintiff told Defendant E. Venegas that he suffered from chronic pain to his right shoulder, wrist, and rectum. Defendant E. Venegas ignored these complaints.
Since the event, Plaintiff suffers from pain in his right shoulder, right arm, and rectum.
The next day, October 25, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to Calipatria State Prison. All of his reading materials, materials and supplies necessary for access to courts, and personal hygiene articles were destroyed. Defendant G. Rodriguez was the last person to search and seize Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant G. Rodriguez destroyed Plaintiff's property in retaliation for bringing a complaint to a supervisor.
Defendant J. Cronjager failed to take disciplinary or other action against Defendants G. Rodriguez and M. Venegas. Defendants J. Cronjager, E. Rivera, and E. Venegas failed to establish adequate procedures for providing medical care to Plaintiff, including inadequate training, supervision or control of subordinates.
Plaintiff also claims that the debilitating conditions of the Reception Center constitute cruel and unusual punishment. They also strip inmates of their dignity.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
42 U.S.C. § 1983. "[Section] 1983 'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); seealso Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006).
To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, "within the meaning of § 1983, 'if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.'" Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). "The requisite causal connection may be established when an official sets in motion a 'series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict' constitutional harms." Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743). This standard of causation "closely resembles the standard 'foreseeability' formulation of proximate cause." Arnold v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
Additionally, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77. In other words, there must be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 695 (1978).
"In its prohibition of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial