Gradford v. Gray
| Decision Date | 08 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-01304-SAB |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. ANDY GRAY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”'), a state prisoner (BR-7892) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, against Defendant Officer Andy Gray. (ECF No 1.) The complaint is now before this Court for screening.[1]
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 on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 (Iqbal), 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (Twombly), 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient ....” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
As a general rule, the Court must limit its review to the operative complaint and may not consider facts presented in extrinsic evidence. See Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). Materials submitted as part of the complaint, however, are not “outside” the complaint and may be considered. Id.; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the Court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by exhibits to the complaint. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended on denial of reh'g, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001); Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998). Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
The Court notes Plaintiff previously filed a civil action containing allegations that are nearly identical in substance to those asserted in the instant complaint, which was also before this Court for screening purposes. Gradford v. Gray (Gray I), No. 1:21-cv-00421-AWI-SAB. Plaintiff filed Gray I on March 15, 2021. Gray I, at ECF No. 1. In that action, the Court screened the complaint and determined Plaintiff stated a potentially cognizable claim for retaliation against Defendant Gray, based on the allegation that Gray fabricated information to extend Plaintiff's probation period after he discovered that Plaintiff was going to file a citizen's complaint against him. Id. at ECF No. 4. However, the Court found Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to state any other claim against Gray or another defendant. Id. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to either file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified by the screening order, or to file a notice with the Court that he elected to proceed on the retaliation claim only. Id. On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of his intent to proceed solely on the retaliation claim as asserted against Defendant Gray. Id. at ECF No. 5. Accordingly, the Court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the action proceed on Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Gray, and all other potential claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. at ECF No. 6.
Confusingly, Plaintiff thereafter filed a “request to withdraw response to findings and recommendations in this case,” despite having filed no response to the findings and recommendations. Id. at ECF No. 7. The filing, which is entirely unintelligible, mentions “extraordinary circumstances,” “emergency,” Rule 60, another case, Gradford v. F. Velasco, 1:20-cv-00543-NONE-EPG PC, and “Proper Jurisdiction intended to amend.” Id. On April 15, 2021, noting it was unclear from Plaintiff's filing whether he was seeking to dismiss the action, or seeking leave to amend, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal. Id. at ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the Court's order might result in issuance of sanctions, including dismissal. Id.
Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's order. Instead, on April 19, 2021, he filed a “motion for reconsideration,” which consisted of a caption page and nothing else, id. at ECF No. 10; and on May 6, 2021, he filed a notice titled “Order Requiring Plaintiff File an Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,” which merely restated the language from the Court's April 15, 2021 order but still did not indicate whether Plaintiff intended to amend or dismiss the complaint, id. at ECF No. 12. On May 19, 2021, the district judge issued an order in which he acknowledged Plaintiffs prior filings, noted they were noncompliant with the Court's orders, and concluded Plaintiff intended to stand by his previous notice to proceed on the cognizable claims. Id. at ECF No. 13. Accordingly, the district judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full, directed the action to proceed on Plaintiffs retaliation claim against Gray, and dismissed all other claims for failure to state a claim. Id. That same day, the Court issued an order in which it authorized service of the complaint and directed Plaintiff to complete and return the service documents within 30 days. Id. at ECF No. 14.
On July 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations; these were disregarded as unsigned. Id. at ECF Nos. 15, 16. Next, Plaintiff filed a motion to resend service documents, which the Court granted. Id. at ECF Nos. 17, 18. On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff sought additional time to effect service, which the Court granted. Id. at ECF Nos. 19, 20. On August 23, 2021, the Court updated Plaintiff's address, based on a notice of change of address Plaintiff filed in a different pending case, Gradford v. United States District Court Eastern District of California, No. 1:21-cv-01019-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2021), and the Court re-served its prior orders. See Gray I, at ECF No. 21.
On September 30, the Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the action for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. Id. at ECF No. 22. Plaintiff filed objections to these findings and recommendations on October 8, 2021. Id. at ECF No. 23. But, again, these “objections” consisted of merely a caption page and no legal argument. See Id. Thus, on November 18, 2021, the district judge issued an order in which he adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the action. Id. at ECF No. 25.
Approximately ten months later, on September 30, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a filing titled “request [for] permission to refile this case/direct clerk to send free copy of original complaint,” which, again, contained no substantive argument in support of Plaintiff's request. Id. at ECF No. 27.
On October 5, 2022, the filing was construed as a motion to reopen the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b), and was denied for lack of any discernable basis to reopen; nonetheless, the Court noted Plaintiff could refile the action, as the prior dismissal was without prejudice. Id. at ECF No. 28.
On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the complaint in the instant action, which is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)
The Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the first amended complaint as true only for the purpose of the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
While Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, the incidents that are the subject of the instant lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was a releasee on probation. Plaintiff alleges that from approximately May 4, 2020 to February 5, 2021, Defendant Officer Andy Gray was his probation officer. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant works with many other probation officers that Plaintiff has sued in the past in previous civil lawsuits. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant committed many retaliatory acts during this period. (Id.)
Plaintiff's brother, Alonzo Gradford, is a well-known and well-connected attorney in Stanislaus County. (Id.) Alonzo knows Defendant, and his office is one block away from the probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial