Pitts v. Espinda

• Decision Date: 21 January 2021
• Docket Number: CIV. NO. 20-00431 LEK-KJM
• Parties: JOSEPH PITTS, #A0259019, Plaintiff, v. NOLAN ESPINDA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

JOSEPH PITTS, #A0259019, Plaintiff, v. NOLAN ESPINDA, et al., Defendants.

CIV. NO. 20-00431 LEK-KJM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

January 21, 2021

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART AND DIRECTING EARLY DISCOVERY

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Joseph Pitts's ("Pitts") First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint ("FAC") asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.¹ ECF No. 13. Also before the Court is Pitts's January 4, 2021 "Supplemental Pleading."² ECF No. 14. Pitts alleges that Defendants, officials of the Department of Public Safety ("DPS") and the Oahu Community CorrectionalCenter ("OCCC"),³ violated the law during his current pretrial confinement at the OCCC. For the following reasons, the FAC is DISMISSED in part with partial leave granted to amend. The Court also DIRECTS early discovery for Pitts to identify the Doe Defendants in Count IV.

I. STATUTORY SCREENING

The Court is required to screen all in forma pauperis prisoner pleadings against government officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). See Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep't, 885 F.3d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 2018). Claims or complaints that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek damages from defendants who are immune from suit must be dismissed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010).

Screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) involves the same standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Under this standard, a complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A claim is "plausible" when the facts alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a specific defendant for specific misconduct. See id.

Rule 12 is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a)(2) when screening a complaint; Rule 8 "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). The "mere possibility of misconduct," or an "unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation" falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 678-79 (citations omitted); see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pro se litigants' pleadings must be liberally construed and all doubts should be resolved in their favor. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The Court must grant leave to amend if it appears the plaintiffcan correct the defects in the complaint. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. When a claim cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of Los Angeles, 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).

II. BACKGROUND⁴

Pitts is a pretrial detainee at the OCCC. On October 7, 2020, the Court received his original Complaint. ECF No. 1. On November 6, 2020, the Court issued an Order Dismissing Complaint in Part with Partial Leave to Amend. ECF No. 6. The Court received Pitts's FAC on December 23, 2020, ECF No. 23, and his Supplemental Pleading on January 1, 2021, ECF No. 14.

In Count I, Pitts alleges a range of violations by Espinda, Sequiera, Altaris, Anderson, and ten unnamed defendants. See ECF No. 13 at PageID ## 87-94. Pitts generally claims that these Defendants: (1) failed to adequately train staff on how to care for inmates with mental health issues; (2) failed to protect inmates from "harm, abuse, denial of food, [and] denial of water"; (3) failed to "operate, monitor, and administrate" properly staff in the mental health module; (4) failed to "stop, curb, and/or eradicate" the "physical abuse, food deprivations and violence" against inmates with mental health issues; (5) intentionally decided not to install more security cameras at the OCCC; (6) failed to establish policies and procedures"to address and correct the repeated constitutional violations at OCCC"; (7) allowed existing policies and procedures to remain in place; and (8) consciously disregarded "the risk to inmates['] safety, well being[,] and denial of human rights." Id. at 87.

In Count II, Pitts alleges that Williamson, Uedoi, Defiesta, and Heick violated his rights in connection with a February 10, 2020 adjustment hearing. Id. at PageID ## 95-96. During the hearing, Pitts was charged with and found guilty of fighting with another person. Id. According to Pitts, two gang members had attacked him "in retaliation for his complaints and grievances against [OCCC]." Id. Pitts claims that he acted in self-defense. Id. Pitts asserts that he "is a target" and he "has an active hit on his life[.]" Id. at PageID # 96. According to Pitts, he asked to call two witnesses who would have corroborated his version of events, but they were not called during the hearing. Id. Pitts also claims that he requested surveillance camera footage, but he was not allowed to see it and it was not presented during the hearing. Id.

In Count III, Pitts alleges that Fernando, Levi, and Uedoi violated his rights during a July 9, 2020 adjustment hearing. Id. at PageID ## 97-99. During this hearing, Pitts was charged with and found guilty of assaulting a person without a weapon or dangerous instrument. Id. at PageID # 97. Pitts claims that he was fighting with another inmate in the OCCC's kitchen when Officer Lamie (who isnot named as a defendant) ordered the inmates to move into a cell, where the inmates were locked inside. Id. Pitts asked to call two witnesses, but they were not called during the hearing. Id. Pitts also claims that he requested surveillance camera footage that would have shown where the fight began, where it ended, and the location of correctional officers at the time, but the video was not reviewed during his hearing. Id. Pitts further claims that he was not allowed to provide a written statement in his defense. Id.

In Count IV, Pitts alleges that Silva, Kami, Jesse, and other unidentified defendants opened his properly marked legal mail outside his presence, delayed his outgoing mail, and delayed or returned his incoming personal mail. Id. at PageID ## 100-02. Pitts claims that prison officials opened properly marked legal mail outside his presence on January 31, 2020, February 1, 2020, and September 5, 2020.⁵ Id. at PageID ## 101-02. Pitts also claims that outgoing legal mail he had given to prison officials on August 12, 2020, was not mailed until August 25, 2020, and a habeas petition he had provided to prison officials on September 3, 2020, was not mailed until September 9, 2020. Id. at PageID # 102. Pitts further claims that some of his incoming personal mail was returned as undeliverable. Id. at PageID # 101.

In Count V, Pitts alleges that Espinda, Altaris, Sequiera, Silva, and other unidentified defendants: (1) failed to train adequately and supervise mailroom staff; (2) failed to protect him from retaliation and reprisal; (3) failed to protect his constitutional rights; (4) failed to enforce mailroom policies and procedures; (5) failed to address and correct "repeated violations of mail procedures and adjustment hearing procedures"; and (6) consciously disregarded risks to his rights. Id. at PageID # 103.

In Count VI, Pitts alleges that Espinda, Mee, Agaran, Hayase, and other unidentified defendants: (1) failed to adequately train and supervise Tiare; (2) failed to protect him from retaliation and reprisal; (3) failed to protect his right to medical care; (4) failed to manage, supervise, and monitor healthcare services at the OCCC; (5) failed to enforce healthcare standards, procedures, and policies; and (6) disregarded risks to his health and safety. Id. at PageID # 104.

Pitts asks for: (1) an order requiring prison officials to make "necessary changes to ensure prisoners are no longer starved, assaulted or abused"; (2) "just and fair compensation" for the mistreatment he allegedly experienced; (3) an order stopping mailroom staff from "obstructing his mail and communications"; (4) surveillance cameras installed throughout the OCCC; and (5) $15,000 for pain and suffering. Id. at PageID # 105.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Framework for Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020). Section 1983 requires a connection or link between a defendant's actions and the plaintiff's alleged deprivation. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 165, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). "A person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of a particular defendant's conduct and must affirmatively link that injury to the violation of...