Hinkley v. Vail
| Decision Date | 03 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. C12-5969 RBL/KLS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | JAMES M. HINKLEY, Plaintiff, v. ELDON VAIL, SCOTT RUSSELL, KERRY ARLOW, JEFF CARLSEN, STEVE DEMARZ, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-40, Defendants. |
Before the Court for review is Plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff also filed a special request for discovery (ECF No. 5) and motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 6). The Court will not direct service of Plaintiff's complaint at this time because it is deficient, as is explained in further detail below. However, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint. His requests for discovery and the appointment of counsel are denied.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 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) and 1915(e)(2); SeeBarren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under 8(a), 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). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555).
Although complaints are to be liberally construed in a plaintiff's favor, conclusory allegations of the law, unsupported conclusions, and unwarranted inferences need not be accepted as true. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Neither can the court supply essential facts that an inmate has failed to plead. Pena, 976 F.2d at 471 (quoting Ivey v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
The Court has liberally construed and summarized Plaintiff's 83 page complaint. The complaint is lengthy, disjointed, and confusing. The majority of Plaintiff's allegations relate to the conditions of his confinement from April 12, 2011 through April 15, 2011. During this time, Plaintiff was held in a "dry cell" while it was being determined if he had any illegal drugs in his system or possession. Documents attached to the complaint indicate that Plaintiff was investigated for bringing drugs into the Washington Corrections Center (WCC) through his mother during an extended family visit. He received eight infractions from this incident. See e.g, ECF No. 4-3, p. 15.
Plaintiff complains that the temperature in the dry cell was not correctly maintained, medical personnel did not check on him every eight hours, log books were incorrectly kept, he was not given a bible or anything else to read, he was not allowed to wash his hands, he was denied a bathroom break (and consequently, urinated on himself and was forced to stay in the soiled garment), and he was forced to provide more than the required amount of stool samples. Plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently confined to the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) for a year thereafter even though no drugs were found in his digestive system. Plaintiff states that he lost 600 days of earned early release time following his disciplinary hearing(s). He alleges generally that "all defendants 12 through 45" are parties to these complaints.
Plaintiff also claims that he is being forced to pay for medication, that his mother has been "banned for life" from visiting him, that he was released into population "where DOC staff had known a risk to his safety" and that he must now be housed in a protective custody unit, his mail was withheld, and a female guard was on watch although Dry Cell watch staff are to be the same sex as the prisoner.
Plaintiff further claims that "WCC's correctional staff subjected him to a number of infractions and he was denied due process during one or several disciplinary hearings. He also states, however, that he has filed a personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals (COA No. 30812-0-III) "on all the infractions."
Plaintiff also appears to be claiming retaliation by staff members after the "incident's [sic] on April 12, 2011." He states that staff member Demarz withheld his address book and that other unidentified staff withheld his legal paperwork and "beads."
In a separate document entitled "cause of action", Plaintiff lists each named defendant or Doe defendant in separate paragraphs and alleges generally, in identical language as to each defendant, that he or she violated Plaintiff's Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rightsbetween April 12, 2011 and April 15, 2011 by allowing him to be "tortured, acting deliberate indifferent to several of his basic human needs and disregard to his health and safety by subjecting him to humiliation in addition to pain, ...". See e.g., ECF No. 4-1, p. 38. He repeats these same general allegations for 40 defendants.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim" as required by Rule 8. Instead of presenting "simple, concise, and direct" averments as required by Rule 8(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 83-page complaint contains far more narrative and verbiage than required to state a claim for relief. In most areas, Plaintiff has also failed to properly link his claims of constitutional violation with a particular defendant or defendants.
The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must write out short, plain statements telling the Court (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly what that individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that person is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that person's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). If the person named as a defendant was a supervisory official, Plaintiff must either state that the defendant personally participated in the constitutional deprivation (and tell the Court the five things listed above), or Plaintiff must state, if he can do so in good faith, that the defendant was aware of the similar widespread abuses, but with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent further harm to Plaintiff and also state facts to support this claim. See Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a defendant, including the "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" defendants. If Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named defendant with the specific injury suffered by Plaintiff, the claim against that defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a defendant or group of defendants have violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be dismissed.
In the following paragraphs, the legal standards that appear to apply to his claims are set forth. Plaintiff should carefully review the standards and amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith, are cognizable.
(1) Retaliation
Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Prison staff may not retaliate against inmates for exercising their constitutional rights to file lawsuits and grievances. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1983); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995); Rhodes, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff alleges generally that staff members retaliated against him after April 12, 2011. Plaintiff must identify the constitutionally protected activity in which he was engaged, describe the adverse action that was taken against him because he was engaging in the protected activity, name the person or persons who took the adverse action against him, and describe how theadverse action affected his ability to continue his First Amendment activity. Plaintiff must also describe how the adverse action taken against him did not otherwise legitimately advance a penological goal.
(2) Access to Courts
The due process clause of the United States Constitution guarantees prisoners the right of meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). This right of access imposes an affirmative duty on prison officials to assist inmates in preparing and filing legal papers, either by establishing an adequate law library or by providing adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Id. at 828. A prisoner must show some actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial