Kidwell v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehabs.

• Decision Date: 27 June 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00253-JLT-EPG (PC)
• Parties: SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL, also known as Jason Scott Harper, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL, also known as Jason Scott Harper, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00253-JLT-EPG (PC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 27, 2022

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 16) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Plaintiff Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF Nos. 1, 11, 16). Plaintiff commenced this action on February 28, 2022, by filing a “petition for writ of mandate,” generally accusing Defendants of constitutional and criminal violations and seeking the Court to direct the District Attorney's Office to file criminal charges against the Defendants. (ECF No. 1) (capitalization omitted). Plaintiff filed a “supplement[] to writ of mandate” on April 4, 2022, seeking to add Defendants for aiding and abetting the deprivation of his civil rights and citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other statutes. (ECF No. 9) (capitalization omitted).

On April 21, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended pleading, noting that Local Rule 220 requires pleadings complete in themselves and without reference to a prior pleading. (ECF No. 12). On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, generally

1

accusing Defendants of constitutional and criminal violations and seeking monetary damages and to have criminal charges filed against them. (ECF No. 16). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint and finds some claims duplicative of another pending action. Additionally, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff's claims, that Plaintiff's claims are frivolous, that Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claim for relief, and that Plaintiff seeks relief against some Defendants immune from suit. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed without further leave to amend.

Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations to file his objections.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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, the Court also screens the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 5). This statute also requires dismissal of frivolous claims, those that fail to state a cognizable claim, and those seeking monetary relief from immune defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

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)). A 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

2

“are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks 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) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

II. BACKGROUND

Given this action's similarity to another pending case, a procedural overview of the two cases is warranted before discussing the specific allegations in the amended complaint. Plaintiff's February 28, 2022, petition for writ of mandate named the following nine Defendants, all prison entities or officials: (1) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR), (2) California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (CSATF), (3) Theresa Cisneros, (4) Anthony Baer, (5) Anthony Jimenez, (6) Elaine Lopez, (7) Jason Barba, (8) Gilda Lepe, and (9) Joseph Brainard. (ECF No. 1). On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “criminal complaint” against six of these same Defendants in 1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB: (1) Theresa Cisneros; (2) Anthony Baer; (3) Anthony Jimenez; (4) Elaine Lopez; (5) Jason Barba; and (6) Joseph Brainard. (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF No. 1)).

Besides sharing six common Defendants, both filings stem from a September 22, 2021 incident at CSATF in which Defendant Anthony Baer ordered Plaintiff and another inmate to be taken into custody and stripped searched. Both allege that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to target Plaintiff for his legal activities, with Defendants falsifying rules violation report (RVR) documents. And both allege a host of constitutional violations and seek the Defendants' criminal indictment.

Additionally, in both actions, Plaintiff has complained about the characterization of his filings. Here, Plaintiff previously complained that the docket reflected this case as a civil rights action rather than a petition for writ of mandate. (ECF No. 6). And in 1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB, Plaintiff complained that his criminal complaint had been illegally converted to a civil rights action. (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF No. 4, p. 1)).

3

In response, this Court noted that Plaintiff, at least as to his supplement, sought more than mandamus relief, as he specifically referenced 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 12). And the Court advised Plaintiff of the legal standards and limitations of seeking mandamus relief, such as the Court's inability to compel action by California state agencies. (Id. at 2). Given the unclear nature of Plaintiff's filings, combined with his violation of Local Rule 220, the Court directed him to file an amended pleading, therein clearly indicating the nature of the action, such as petition for writ of mandamus or § 1983 complaint. (Id. at 3).

Likewise, in 1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB, Plaintiff was advised that his criminal complaint was deficient because federal law does not permit private citizens to bring criminal prosecutions. (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF No. 5, pp. 1-2)). Plaintiff filed “objections,” which the District Judge construed as seeking reconsideration. (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF Nos. 10, 11)). The District Judge denied reconsideration and reiterated that Plaintiff had no constitutional right to have another person criminally prosecuted. (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF No. 11)).

Following these orders, the Court in 1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB screened Plaintiff's complaint on May 13, 2022, concluding that Plaintiff failed to state any claim cognizable under § 1983 and again advising Plaintiff that he could not initiate a criminal prosecution against Defendants. (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF No. 14)). Plaintiff was provided with the relevant legal standards and given thirty days to file an amended complaint. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections, contending that he has a right to file a criminal complaint and did not intend to file a § 1983 complaint. (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF No. 15)). On June 16, 2022, the District Judge construed the objections as a motion for reconsideration, denied the motion, and noted that “Plaintiff's remedy is to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court's May 13, 2022 order.” (1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB (ECF No. 16)).

On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint in this case (dated May 15, 2022), purportedly seeking relief for civil rights violations through various criminal statutes. (ECF No. 16). Notably, Plaintiff adds the following eight Defendants to this suit, accusing them of being part of the same conspiracy alleged in this action and 1:22-cv-290-JLT-SAB: (1) E.

4

Moreno, a prison official; (2) Valerie R. Chrissakis, a state court judge; (3) Michael J. Reinhart, a state court judge; (4) Nocona Soboleski, identified as an officer of the court and elsewhere as a state court clerk; (5) the Kings County Sheriff's Department (KCSD); (6) Keith Lee Fagundes, whom Plaintiff indicates is a state district attorney; (7) United States Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone; and (8) United States District Judge Jennifer Thurston.

III. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's amended complaint lists seventeen total Defendants: (1) CDCR, (2) CSATF, (3) Warden Theresa Cisneros, (4) Captain Anthony Baer, (5) Sergeant Anthony Jimenez, (6) Sergeant Elaine Lopez, (7) Litigation Coordinator Jason Barba, (8) Office Technician Gilda Lepe, and (9) Lieutenant Joseph Brainard, (10) “CSR” Staff Member E. Moreno, (11) Judge Valerie R. Chrissakis, (12) Judge Michael J. Reinhart, (13) Court Clerk Nocona Soboleski, (14) KCSD, (15) District Attorney Keith Lee Fagundes, (16) Magistrate Judge Boone; and (17) District Judge Thurston. For his general recitation of facts, Plaintiff states as follows:

On September 22, 2021, while at CSATF, Baer ordered Plaintiff and another inmate, Brown, to be taken into custody, strip searched, and held “illegally” in a holding cage, where Plaintiff was held for about thirty to forty-five minutes.^[1] Jimenez asked Plaintiff if he knew why he was being held. Plaintiff did not know and asked why...