Evans v. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Dublin

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00205
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JILL M. EVANS, Case No. 25-cv-00205-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND

10 T. JUSINO, Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a federal inmate at the La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado, who is 14 proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action. Her claims arise from events 15 occurring at the Federal Correctional Institute in Dublin, California (“FCI Dublin”), where she 16 was formerly housed. She sues the former FCI Dublin Warden T. Jusino for keeping her in 17 custody for 310 days past her release date. (ECF No. 4 at 2, 4.) Leave to proceed in forma 18 pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is 19 DISMISSED with leave to amend. STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915A(a). The Court must identify claims that are capable of being judicially heard and decided 23 or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, 24 or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by parties 26 unrepresented by an attorney must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 27 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 2 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 3 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 4 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 5 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 6 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 7 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 8 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 550 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 9 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 555. 10 A private right of action for damages may be implied from the Constitution itself for 11 constitutional violations by federal employees or their agents. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal 12 Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 392-97 (1971). 13 LEGAL CLAIMS 14 Plaintiff alleges on April 21, 2022, she was informed she was “eligible for immediate 15 release” from custody under the First Step Act. (ECF No. 4 at 5.) However, she alleges 16 Defendant Jusino “held” her until February 15, 2023, 310 days later. (Id. at 4, 5.) She alleges had 17 she been released on time, 310 days could have been credited towards her state sentence, and she 18 “could have been finished with my state sentence.” (Id. at 5.) The relief she seeks is monetary 19 damages for “mental and emotional abuse.” (Id.) 20 While plaintiffs generally may recover damages for pain and suffering and mental and 21 emotional distress that results from constitutional violations, see Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 257, 22 264 (1978); Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir. 1988), the Prisoner Litigation 23 Reform Act (PLRA) provides that prisoners may recover for mental or emotional injuries suffered 24 while incarcerated only if they first show that they suffered a physical injury. 42 U.S.C. § 25 1997e(e). Plaintiff does not allege she suffered any physical injury. Consequently, her claim for 26 monetary damages, based solely on mental and emotional injuries, must be dismissed. Plaintiff 27 1 injury caused by Defendant’s actions. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons explained above, 4 1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an 5 amended complaint on or before May 30, 2025. The amended complaint must include the caption 6 and civil case number used in this order (No. C 25-0205 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT- 7 ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint 8 completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 9 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by reference; she must include in 10 || her amended complaint all the claims she wishes to pursue. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended 11 complaint within the designated time, or if the amendment is not sufficient, the case will be 12 || dismissed. 5 13 2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 14 || wnformed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 15 Change of Address.” She also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to a 16 || do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 3 17 Civil Procedure 41(b). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a 18 showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: April 17, 2025 21 □ 22 ne 73 JA@QUBLINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28