Roman v. Knowles
| Decision Date | 20 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 07cv1343-JLS (POR) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | ISIDRO ROMAN, Plaintiff, v. MIKE KNOWLES, et al., Defendant. |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff Isidro Roman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Fourth Amended civil rights Complaint1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following Defendants: M.D. Greenwood, correctional lieutenant at the California State Prison at Calipatria ("CSP-CAL"); F.L. Martinez, correctional sergeant at CSP-CAL; A. Hernandez, K. Teeters, J. Nutt, C. Rodiles, Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzales, and P. Rodriguez-Toledo, correctional officers at CSP-CAL. (ECF No. 95.) Plaintiff sues defendants solely in their individual capacities. (Id.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his (1) Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, (2) First Amendment right to be free from retaliation, and (3) Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process. (ECF No. 95 at 11-14.)
///
/// On December 1, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 99.2) Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to certain claims and Defendants, as required by law; (2) To the extent that Plaintiff bases his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas on deliberate indifference or any ground other than excessive force, that claim is beyond the scope of claims allowed by the Court's order of August 5, 2010; (3) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Greenwood is beyond the scope of claims allowed by the Court's order of August 5, 2010; (4) Plaintiff's Due Process claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); (5) Alternatively, Plaintiff has failed to state a Due Process claim, because he had no liberty interest at stake in his administrative hearing. (MTD at 4-10.)
On December 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 101.)
On January 31, 2011, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 104.)
After thorough review of the parties' papers and all supporting documents, this Court RECOMMENDS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff is an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran, California. Plaintiff files this suit, complaining of events which he claims occurred while he was an inmate at Calipatria State Prison ("CSP-CAL").
Plaintiff alleges that on September 15, 2005, he requested to be placed in Administrative Segregation due to threats against him by other inmates. His request was approved that day, and Defendants Martinez and Hernandez escorted him to his assigned cell in Administrative Segregation. (4AC ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiff was classified as a "Sensitive Needs" inmate, and thisclassification required that he not be celled with certain other inmates. (4AC ¶ 20.) Plaintiff alleges this classification was omitted from the order to place him in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff alleges this omission was intentional, and that Defendants Martinez and Hernandez placed him in a cell with an incompatible inmate from the general population. (4AC ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that soon after his placement in that cell, the other inmate attacked him. (4AC ¶ 25.) He claims that during the attack, which continued for several minutes, Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas simply watched as it continued. (Id.) These Defendants finally subdued the other inmate and ordered Plaintiff to the floor. (4AC ¶ 26.) Plaintiff contends Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas then proceeded to use excessive force on him, jumping on his back, twisting his arms and legs, elbowing his back and rib cage, and banging his head against the concrete floor. (4AC ¶¶ 27-28.) Defendants Martinez and Hernandez wrote rules violations reports charging Plaintiff with initiating the violence. Plaintiff claims that this charge was false, and he was eventually exonerated of the charge. (4AC ¶ 30.) Plaintiff filed a grievance in connection with this incident. (4AC ¶ 31.)
Plaintiff also alleges Defendants Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas conspired with Defendants Rush, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzalez, and Rodriguez-Toledo to interfere with Plaintiff's First Amendment right to file a grievance. Plaintiff contends they did so by calling him names such as "child molester," "rat," and "snitch" in front of other inmates. (4AC ¶ 29.) Plaintiff claims that as a result of this name-calling, he was again attacked by another inmate on November 15, 2005, and that Defendant Rodriguez-Toledo witnessed the attack. (4AC ¶ 32.) As a result of that incident, Plaintiff was issued another rules violation report, charging him with "mutual combat." (4AC ¶ 33.) At the hearing on this charge, Plaintiff claims Defendant Greenwood, the Senior Hearing Officer, offered to dismiss the "mutual combat" charge if Plaintiff would drop his grievance arising from the September 15, 2005 incident. (4AC ¶ 34.) He contends that because he declined this offer, he was denied the right to present evidence. Plaintff was found guilty of the charge. (4AC ¶¶ 35-37.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Gonzales, Alderete, Lopez, and Rodriguez-Toledo continued to call him names in front of other inmates, which caused other inmatesto throw urine and excrement on him during any movement from his cell or other escort. (4AC ¶ 38.)
On July 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Adams, Crones, Giurbino, and Zamora. (ECF No. 1). On August 6, 2007, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to pay filing fees and/or move to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). On August 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Knowles, Bourland, Cobbs, Paramo, Moncayo, Butler, Arline, Bell, Carrillo, Din, Newman, Greenwood, Hinshaw, Cake, Martinez, Lane, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzales, Rodriguez-Toledo, Terrones, DOES 1-100, Adams, Giurbino, and Zamora. (ECF No. 4). On October 18, 2007, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 8).
On December 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Bourland, Paramo, Butler, Bell, Din, Newman, Greenwood, Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzales, Rodriguez-Toledo, Terrones, Giurbino, and Zamora. (ECF No. 13.) On March 28, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 41.) On January 26, 2009, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 55) that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted, which the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino adopted in part, and rejected in part. (ECF No. 64.)
On August 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint against Defendants Knowles, Giurbino, Zamora, Bourland, Paramo, Butler, Bell, Newman, Greenwood, Martinez, Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, Rush, Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzales, and Rodriguez-Toledo. (ECF No. 69.) On September 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 70.) On June 24, 2010, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 88) that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, which the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino adopted in its entirety. (ECF No. 90.)
///
///
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims in the complaint. See Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 633 (1999). "The old formula -- that the complaint must not be dismissed unless it is beyond doubt without merit -- was discarded by the Bell Atlantic decision [Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 n.8 (2007)]." Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008).
A complaint must be dismissed if it does not contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995); N.L. Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).
The court does not look at whether the plaintiff will "ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n.8. A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is generally proper only where there "is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory." Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial