Williams v. Dirkse
| Decision Date | 05 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:21-cv-00047-BAM (PC) |
| Parties | SCOTT ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DIRKSE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Scott Alexander Williams ("Plaintiff") is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on January 31, 2021, is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. 1.)
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).
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). 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)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff is currently housed at Stanislaus County Public Safety Center, Modesto California, where the events alleged in the complaint occurred. It is unclear if Plaintiff is convicted or a pretrial detainee.1 Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Jeff Dirkse, Sheriff, (2) Bill Duncan, Captain, (3) Scott Houston, Facilities Lieutenant, (4) Anthony Elliot, Operations Sergeant, (5) Stanislaus Public Safety Center ("PSC"), (6) Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office, (7) Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, (8) Brigit Fladager, District Attorney.
In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges the PSC, the Sheriff's Office, Board of Supervisors and Dirkse and District Attorney Fladager failed to properly oversee their subordinates at PSC, Captain Bill Duncan and Lieutenant Houston, in the creation and implementation of the mail procedure to ensure the procedure complies with the law. Defendants Duncan, Houston and Elliot are response for the creation and implementation of the PSC mail procedure that wakes Plaintiff up during the night when the program is shut down and he is asleep. Plaintiff alleges he is being denied of the minimal level of nightly sleep from the jail procedures. In claim 2, Plaintiff allegesa violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and restates the same allegations as in claim 1. In claim 3, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the First Amendment and restates the same allegations as in claim 1.
In claim 4, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that the PSC, the Sheriff's Office, Board of Supervisors and Dirkse and District Attorney Fladager failed to properly oversee their subordinates at PSC, Captain Bill Duncan and Lieutenant Houston, in the creation and implementation of the program and lockdown procedure and policy which denied Plaintiff access to phone calls and visits for 19 days (11/30/2020-12/20/20200 when he was not on disciplinary status. Plaintiff suffered mental health deterioration, duress, anxiety, sleep deprivation. Claim 5 alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment and restates the same allegations as in claim 4. Claim 6 alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and restates the same allegations as in claim 4. Claim 7 alleges a violation of the Sixth Amendment and restates the same allegations as in claim 4.
In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, Plaintiff seeks a declaration of his rights and an injunction to force defendant to cease their illegal mail procedures and policies and change mail delivery time from 12 a.m. to daytime, among other requests. He also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction. (See Doc. 1, p. 18.)
In his complaint, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev'd in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether "exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success onthe merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court has considered Plaintiff's request, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners who are proceeding pro se and with limited access to the law library almost daily. Many of these prisoners also have limited education and receive mental health treatment. These litigants also must conduct legal research and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel.
Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened to determine whether it states cognizable claims upon which it may proceed, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because he is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his complaint to the extent that he can do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the pleading and legal standards that appear relevant to his claims.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.
Although Plaintiff's complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of his claims. As a basic matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was involved. Plaintiff's allegations must be based on facts as to what happened and not conclusions. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be a short and plain statement of his claims, and must include factual allegations identifying what happened, when it happened and who was involved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law]...subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution...shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that "[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).
Plaintiff's complaint fails to link each defendant to potential constitutional violations. Plaintiff must name individual defendants and allege what...
To continue reading
Request your trial