1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 ANTHONY GONSALVES, ) Case No. EDCV 19-1822-ODW (JEM) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. ) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH ) LEAVE TO AMEND 14 T. LE, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 PROCEEDINGS 18 On September 23, 2019, Anthony Gonsalves (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”). 20 For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Complaint should be 21 dismissed with leave to amend. 22 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 23 Plaintiff alleges the following: 24 Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment right to share in earning additional good conduct 25 credits has and continued to be violated by the named Defendants based on 26 their individual failures to correct inadequate medical records, which in 27 essence affected the Plaintiff’s custody placement and ability to attend 28 1 firecamp. The Defendants’ failure to correct the inadequate medical records 2 in question also caused adverse custody placement determinations to be 3 rendered. Subsequently after multiple attempts to have this matter corrected 4 the Plaintiff also suffered the ill effects of not gaining rehabilitative firecamp 5 training. 6 (Complaint at 5.) Plaintiff appears to allege that his medical records included an incorrect 7 medical classification. He further alleges that each of the named Defendants were made 8 aware of the mistake in Plaintiff’s medical records but failed to correct it, in violation of 9 Plaintiff’s “right to have adequate and correct records maintained” under California 10 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) policies. Plaintiff asserts that, by 11 failing to correct his medical records, Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights 12 to due process and equal protection. (Id. at 8-11.) 13 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 12.) 14 DISCUSSION 15 I. PLEADING STANDARDS 16 A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two 17 reasons: (1) the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the plaintiff has 18 alleged insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 19 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a complaint states a claim on 20 which relief may be granted, allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in 21 the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 22 1988). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual 23 allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of 24 a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 25 pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 26 27 28 1 Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations" to survive 2|| dismissal, a plaintiff must provide “more than mere labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 3] recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 4| 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (rejecting the traditional “no set of facts” standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). The complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to rise above the “speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, or the merely possible or conceivable. Id. at 557, 570. 8 Simply put, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 9] plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the 10 | complaint presents enough facts “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 11] liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This standard is not a probability requirement, but “it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 13] unlawfully.” Id. A complaint that pleads facts that are merely consistent with liability stops 14 || short of the line between possibility and plausibility. Id. 15 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) 16 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 17 || that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 18] Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 19] § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person 21] deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he 23 is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; 27 28
1| the plaintiff must instead “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's” 2| deprivation of protected rights. Id. at 634. 3 In a pro se civil rights case, the complaint must be construed liberally to afford 4| plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that the deficiencies in a complaint cannot be cured, pro se litigants are generally entitled to a notice of a complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to the dismissal of an action. Id. at 623. Only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment should the complaint be 9] dismissed without leave to amend. Id.; Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 10 || 2007). 11] IL. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM 12 Plaintiff is alleging a violation of his constitutional rights based on an alleged failure to comply with CDCR policies regarding maintenance of medical records.’ Plaintiff appears to invoke both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 15 || Amendment as the bases for his claims. Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable civil rights 16 | claim. 17 In general, prison inmates do not have a protected liberty interest in freedom from 18] alleged classification errors where such errors do not cause the inmates to be subjected to 19] "atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 ANTHONY GONSALVES, ) Case No. EDCV 19-1822-ODW (JEM) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. ) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH ) LEAVE TO AMEND 14 T. LE, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 PROCEEDINGS 18 On September 23, 2019, Anthony Gonsalves (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”). 20 For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Complaint should be 21 dismissed with leave to amend. 22 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 23 Plaintiff alleges the following: 24 Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment right to share in earning additional good conduct 25 credits has and continued to be violated by the named Defendants based on 26 their individual failures to correct inadequate medical records, which in 27 essence affected the Plaintiff’s custody placement and ability to attend 28 1 firecamp. The Defendants’ failure to correct the inadequate medical records 2 in question also caused adverse custody placement determinations to be 3 rendered. Subsequently after multiple attempts to have this matter corrected 4 the Plaintiff also suffered the ill effects of not gaining rehabilitative firecamp 5 training. 6 (Complaint at 5.) Plaintiff appears to allege that his medical records included an incorrect 7 medical classification. He further alleges that each of the named Defendants were made 8 aware of the mistake in Plaintiff’s medical records but failed to correct it, in violation of 9 Plaintiff’s “right to have adequate and correct records maintained” under California 10 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) policies. Plaintiff asserts that, by 11 failing to correct his medical records, Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights 12 to due process and equal protection. (Id. at 8-11.) 13 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 12.) 14 DISCUSSION 15 I. PLEADING STANDARDS 16 A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two 17 reasons: (1) the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the plaintiff has 18 alleged insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 19 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a complaint states a claim on 20 which relief may be granted, allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in 21 the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 22 1988). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual 23 allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of 24 a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 25 pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 26 27 28 1 Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations" to survive 2|| dismissal, a plaintiff must provide “more than mere labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 3] recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 4| 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (rejecting the traditional “no set of facts” standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). The complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to rise above the “speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, or the merely possible or conceivable. Id. at 557, 570. 8 Simply put, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 9] plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the 10 | complaint presents enough facts “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 11] liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This standard is not a probability requirement, but “it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 13] unlawfully.” Id. A complaint that pleads facts that are merely consistent with liability stops 14 || short of the line between possibility and plausibility. Id. 15 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) 16 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 17 || that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 18] Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 19] § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person 21] deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he 23 is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; 27 28
1| the plaintiff must instead “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's” 2| deprivation of protected rights. Id. at 634. 3 In a pro se civil rights case, the complaint must be construed liberally to afford 4| plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that the deficiencies in a complaint cannot be cured, pro se litigants are generally entitled to a notice of a complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to the dismissal of an action. Id. at 623. Only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment should the complaint be 9] dismissed without leave to amend. Id.; Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 10 || 2007). 11] IL. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM 12 Plaintiff is alleging a violation of his constitutional rights based on an alleged failure to comply with CDCR policies regarding maintenance of medical records.’ Plaintiff appears to invoke both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 15 || Amendment as the bases for his claims. Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable civil rights 16 | claim. 17 In general, prison inmates do not have a protected liberty interest in freedom from 18] alleged classification errors where such errors do not cause the inmates to be subjected to 19] "atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The same principle applies to claimed due 21] process violations arising from allegedly false information in prison documents. See Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 268-69 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[T]here are no procedural safeguards protecting a prisoner from false retaliatory accusations; a guard may, and often does, file an 24 2 ' Plaintiff also cites to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(e)(5) and 552(a)(g)(1)(C) in support of his claims. 26 | (Complaint at 13.) These provisions are plainly inapplicable, as they pertain only to federal agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). CDCR is a state agency and, therefore, these statutes do not provide a basis for liability in this action. 28
1 accusation solely on his own word, making his mere accusation the only 'modicum of 2 evidence.'"); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Because 3 Washington law provides a liberty interest in accurate prison record information in the 4 proper case, we do not reach the question of whether in the absence of the statute, such a 5 right is 'grounded in the due process clause' itself."); Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, 834 F.2d 6 1093, 1097 (1st Cir. 1987) (no claim presented where inmate failed to allege false 7 information maintained by police department relied upon to deprive him of constitutionally 8 protected interest); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986) (Prisoners have 9 "no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct 10 which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest," so long as they are "not . 11 . . deprived of a protected liberty interest without due process of law."); Pruett v. Levi, 622 12 F.2d 256, 258 (6th Cir. 1980) (mere existence of inaccuracy in FBI criminals files not state 13 constitutional claim); Riley v. Beaulieu, No. 13-00847, 2013 WL 3968603, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 14 July 31, 2013) ("To the extent Plaintiff believes an inaccurate prison record denies him due 15 process, he fails to state a claim. . . . The Ninth Circuit has not found that prisoners have 16 an independent right, grounded in the Due Process Clause, to an accurate prison record. . . 17 . Liberty interests created by prison regulations are limited to freedom from restraint which 18 'imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents 19 of prison life.'") (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484). 20 Here, Plaintiff is alleging that his prison records contain incomplete or inaccurate 21 information regarding his medical status. The mere presence of this allegedly incomplete or 22 inaccurate information in Plaintiff's prison medical records does not, without more, violate 23 Plaintiff's right to due process. Plaintiff cannot show that the collateral consequences he 24 alleges, such as ineligibility for the firecamp program, is an atypical and significant hardship 25 in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Moreover, Plaintiff was afforded adequate 26 27 28 1|| procedural due process through the prison grievance system. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a due process claim. 3 Although Plaintiff also refers to the Equal Protection Clause, he fails to state facts showing either that he was a member of a protected class, Hartmann v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan, 6] 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013), or that he was intentionally treated differently than similarly situated individuals without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 601-02 (2008); Village of 9] Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 10] 411 U.S. 1 (1972). Plaintiff also fails to state any facts to support an inference of 11 discriminatory intent by any of the named Defendants. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-240 (1976); Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1081-82; Freeman v. Arpio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 13] (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, Plaintiff also fails to state a cognizable equal protection claim. 14 Plaintiff's allegations that his prison medical records contain incomplete or inaccurate 15 information, and that prison officials have failed to accurately maintain his prison records, 16 | do not give rise to a cognizable claim under Section 1983. Although it does not appear 17 | likely that Plaintiff can correct the deficiencies of his claims, the Court will grant him leave to 18] amend in light of his pro se status. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must allege facts demonstrating a cognizable civil rights claim under the standards set forth 20| above. m4 kaeae 22 For the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 23 | AMEND. 24 If Plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, which remedies the deficiencies 26 | discussed above. 27 28
1 If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it should: (1) bear the docket 2 number assigned in this case; (2) be labeled “First Amended Complaint"; (3) be filled out 3 exactly in accordance with the directions on the form; and (4) be complete in and of itself 4 without reference to the previous complaints or any other pleading, attachment or 5 document. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank Central District of California 6 civil rights complaint form, which Plaintiff must fill out completely and resubmit. 7 Plaintiff is admonished that, if he fails to file a First Amended Complaint by the 8 deadline set herein, the Court may recommend that this action be dismissed for 9 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order. 10 11 DATED: February 25, 2021 /s/ John E. McDermott 12 JOHN E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28