Pitts v. Espinda
| Decision Date | 18 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 20-00431 LEK-KJM |
| Parties | JOSEPH PITTS, #A0259019, Plaintiff, v. NOLAN ESPINDA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART AND DIRECTING SERVICE
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Joseph Pitts' (“Pitts”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 24. Pitts asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Pitts alleges that Defendants, officials of the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) and the Oahu Community Correctional Center (“OCCC”), [1] violated the law during his pretrial confinement at the OCCC.[2] The Court has screened the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a) and finds that it states claims for relief against Defendants Willamson, Uedoi, Fernando, Levi, Seaton-Brisette, Silva, and Kami in their individual capacities. Pitts' other claims are DISMISSED, as specified below.[3]
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 plaintiff can 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. BACKGROUND[4]
Pitts was a pretrial detainee at the OCCC between January and November 2020.[5] ECF No. 24 at 5. On “at least” four or five occasions during this period, Pitts was housed in Module 1, the OCCC's “mental health module.” Id.
The Court received Pitts' original Complaint regarding his experiences at the OCCC on October 7, 2020. ECF No. 1. The Court issued an Order Dismissing Complaint in Part with Partial Leave to Amend on November 6, 2020. ECF No. 6.
The Court received Pitts' First Amendment Complaint (“FAC”) on December 23, 2020, ECF No. 13, and his Supplemental Pleading on January 4, 2021, ECF No. 14. The Court issued an Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint in Part and Directing Early Discovery on January 21, 2021. ECF No. 16.
Pitts filed the SAC on June 9, 2021. ECF No. 24. In Count I, Pitts alleges a range of violations by Espinda, Sequiera, Alteris, Sgt. Anderson, Seaton-Brisette, and ten unnamed defendants. ECF No. 24 at 3-4. Pitts generally claims that these Defendants: (1) failed to properly train and supervise staff on the proper care of pretrial detainees with mental health issues; (2) failed to protect him from harm, abuse, and the denial of adequate food, water, and warmth; (3) failed to provide him with a sink; (4) failed to “maintain humane housing” and provided inmates with inadequate food; (5) failed to ensure that he received water, warmth, blankets, a clean smock, and cleaning supplies; (6) failed to properly monitor staff; (7) failed to prevent abuse, neglect, and food deprivation; (8) failed to install adequate video surveillance equipment; (9) failed to establish and enforce appropriate policies and procedures; (10) left policies in procedures in place; (11) disregarded inmate safety, well-being, and their human rights; and (12) promoted a “culture of acceptance.”[6] Id.
In Count II, Pitts alleges that Williamson, Uedoi, and Defiesta violated his rights in connection with a February 10, 2020 adjustment hearing. Id. at 12. During the hearing, Pitts was charged with and found guilty of fighting with another person. Id. According to Pitts, he acted in self-defense when two gang members attacked him “in retaliation for his complaints and grievances against [the OCCC].” Id. Pitts identified two witnesses who would have corroborated his version of events, but they were not called to testify during the hearing. Id. Pitts also requested surveillance camera footage, but he was not allowed to see it and the video 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 14. During this hearing, Pitts was charged with and found guilty of assaulting a person without a weapon or dangerous instrument. Id. Pitts claims that he was fighting with another inmate in the OCCC's kitchen when Officer Lamie (who is not named as a defendant) ordered the inmates to move into a cell, where the inmates were locked inside. Id. According to Pitts, he “requested” two witnesses, but they were not called during the July 9, 2020 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, and ten unidentified defendants opened his properly marked legal mail outside his presence, delayed his outgoing mail, and delayed or returned his incoming personal mail.[7] Id. at 20. Pitts claims that prison officials opened properly marked legal mail outside his presence on January 31, 2020, February 1, 2020, and September 5, 2020.8 Id. at 21-22. Pitts also claims that outgoing legal mail he had given to prison officials on August 12, 2020, was not mailed until August 25, 2020, a motion he had provided to prison officials on August 2, 2020, was not mailed until August 12, 2020, and a habeas petition he had given to prison officials on September 3, 2020, was not mailed until September 9, 2020. Id. at 22. Pitts further claims that some of his incoming personal mail was returned as undeliverable. Id. 21.
In Count V, Pitts alleges that Espinda, Alteris, Sequiera, Silva, and ten unidentified defendants: (1) failed to train adequately and supervise mailroom staff; (2) failed to protect him from retaliation and reprisal for “accessing the courts”; (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 23.[8]
Pitts asks for: (1) an order directing prison officials to take “corrective action to stop the abuse, denial of food and denial of medical care” at the OCCC; (2) $25, 000 in “compensation”; (3) a declaratory judgment that prison officials violated his constitutional rights; and (4) “all other applicable remedies.” Id. at 24.
III. DISCUSSION
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial