Camp v. Rodriguez

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 KEFVON JEROME CAMP, Case No. 24-cv-04771-RMI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9

10 R. RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed an amended 15 complaint. (dkt. 8). 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 20 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 22 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 23 Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement 26 need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 27 rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a 1 the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 2 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . [f]actual allegations must 3 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 4 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 5 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has 6 recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly as such: “[w]hile legal 7 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 8 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 9 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 10 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 12 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 13 alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 14 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly found guilty at a disciplinary hearing. 17 Interests protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from two sources – the Due 18 Process Clause itself and laws of the states. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). 19 Changes in conditions so severe as to affect the sentence imposed in an unexpected manner 20 implicate the Due Process Clause itself, whether or not they are authorized by state law. See 21 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Deprivations that are authorized by state law and are 22 less severe or more closely related to the expected terms of confinement may also amount to 23 deprivations of a procedurally protected liberty interest, provided that (1) state statutes or 24 regulations narrowly restrict the power of prison officials to impose the deprivation, i.e., give the 25 inmate a kind of right to avoid it, and (2) the liberty in question is one of “real substance.” See id. 26 at 477-87. Generally, “real substance” will be limited to freedom from (1) a restraint that imposes 27 “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” 1 Prisoners are protected from being deprived of liberty without due process of law. Wolff v. 2 McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal 3 prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” 4 Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556. The minimum procedural requirements that must be met in such 5 proceedings are: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at least 24 hours between the time the 6 prisoner receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so that the prisoner may prepare his 7 defense; (3) a written statement by the fact finders of the evidence they rely on and reasons for 8 taking disciplinary action; (4) the right of the prisoner to call witnesses in his defense, when 9 permitting him to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional 10 goals; and (5) legal assistance to the prisoner where the prisoner is illiterate or the issues presented 11 are legally complex. Id. at 563-71. 12 Plaintiff’s original complaint contained very few allegations and was dismissed with leave 13 to amend to provide more information. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff states that he and five 14 other individuals were issued disciplinary notices by Defendant Rodriguez De La Paz for delaying 15 a peace officer. A month later, Defendant Valdez called Plaintiff for a disciplinary hearing without 16 any notice. Valdez was the hearing officer and Plaintiff pled guilty without hearing any details of 17 the charges. He pled guilty so he could go back to the yard, though he did not know what he was 18 pleading guilty to. When Plaintiff learned it was regarding the delaying of a peace officer incident, 19 he was said he was not guilty, but Valdez said it was too late and ordered Plaintiff taken to the 20 yard depriving him of his right to be heard. Plaintiff later learned that the disciplinary charges 21 were dropped against the other individuals. Plaintiff also contends that the video footage from 22 Rodriguez De La Paz’s body camera should have shown that he did not delay a peace officer, but 23 Valdez ignored the evidence. 24 As a result of his guilty plea, Plaintiff lost privileges for 60 days including talking to his 25 family, going to the yard, and receiving food packages which resulted in him losing a significant 26 amount of weight. Plaintiff states that he appealed the disciplinary finding, and it was later 27 overturned. He seeks money damages. Liberally construed for purposes of screening, Plaintiff 1 allegations against Rodriguez De La Paz in the amended complaint fail to state a claim for relief. 3 The Court orders that Defendant Lieutenant M. Valdez be served electronically at Salinas 4 Valley State Prison. Defendant Rodriguez De La Paz is dismissed from this case. 5 Service on the listed Defendant will be effected via the California Department of 6 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners 7 in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via 8 email the following documents: the operative complaint (dkt. 8), this order of service, the notice of 9 assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate 10 judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver 11 form and a summons. The Clerk is also requested to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff. 12 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall provide 13 the Court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the Court which Defendants 14 listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United 15 States Marshal Service (USMS) and which Defendants decline to waive service or could not be 16 reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver and of the 17 notice of assignment of prisoner case to a magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge 18 jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form to the California Attorney General’s Office, 19 which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court a waiver of service of process for the Defendants 20 who are waiving service and, within 28 days thereafter, shall file a magistrate judge jurisdiction 21 consent or declination to consent form as to the defendants who waived service. 22 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk is requested to prepare 23 for each Defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service 24 Waiver a USM-285 Form. The Clerk will provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms 25 and copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for service upon each 26 Defendant who has not waived service. The Clerk will also provide to the USMS a copy of the 27 CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver. 1 In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 2 No later than sixty days from the date of service, Defendant shall file their motion for 3 summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual 4 documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and shall 5 include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If Defendant 6 is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion, they shall so inform the Court 7 prior to the date that such motion is due. Moreover, all papers filed with the Court shall be 8 promptly served on Plaintiff. 9 At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendant shall also serve, on a separate 10 paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th 11 Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003); see Woods 12 v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that Rand and Wyatt notices must be 13 given at the time motions for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for non-exhaustion are 14 filed, not earlier); Rand, 154 F.3d at 960 (establishing the separate paper requirement). 15 Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the Court and 16 served upon Defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion is served upon him. 17 Additionally, Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE – WARNING,” which is 18 provided to him pursuant to Rand, 154 F.3d at 953-954, and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 19 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). 20 If Defendant files a motion for summary judgment claiming that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 21 his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Plaintiff should take 22 note of the attached page headed “NOTICE – WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided 23 to him as required by Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 n. 4. 24 If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen days after the 25 opposition is served. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 26 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. All 27 communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, or Defendant’s 1 counsel, if and when counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 2 || Defendant or Defendant’s counsel. 3 Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No 4 || further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the parties 5 || may conduct discovery. 6 Finally, it is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 7 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 8 || Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 9 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 41(b). a 12 Dated: November 18, 2024 R®@BERT M. ILLMAN IS United States Magistrate Judge 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 2 If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. 3 A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if 4 granted, end your case. 5 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 6 Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact-- 7 that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party 8 who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your 9 case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly 10 supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your 11 complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to 12 interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts 13 shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of 14 material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, 15 if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be 16 dismissed and there will be no trial. 17 NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) 18 If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking 19 to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case. You have the right to 20 present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did exhaust your administrative 21 remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations (statements signed under penalty of 22 perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing 23 where they came from and why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to 24 interrogatories or depositions. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to 25 exhaust and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 26 27