Gregory Franklin v. Alex Villanueva

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-05837
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-05837-CBM-MRW Document13 Filed 03/14/23 Page1of5 Page ID #:108 5 JS-6 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 2 Case No. CV 22-5837 CBM (MRW) 13 | GREGORY FRANKLIN, 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND “ FRCP 41 16 | A. VILLANUEVA, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 The Court dismisses this action without leave to amend for failure to 909 | state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 21 kek 99 1. This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff an 93 | inmate at the state prison in Lancaster. Over the years, he has attempted 94 | to litigate numerous of federal civil actions against the staff of the 95 | Lancaster prison. 26 2. The gist of Plaintiffs original complaint in this action 97 | (CV 22-5837) is that, while temporarily housed at the Men’s Central Jail 98 | (MCJ) in Los Angeles in 2022, this Court dismissed one of his Lancaster-

Case 2:22-cv-05837-CBM-MRW Document 13 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:109

1 related civil cases. Plaintiff alleges that the staff at the MCJ illegally 2 denied him access to a law library, which he contends led to the dismissal 3 of the earlier action. In other words, in the current 22-5837 action, 4 Plaintiff wishes to sue the MCJ guards for allegedly causing the dismissal 5 of a lawsuit involving Lancaster prison guards. 6 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, Magistrate 7 Judge Wilner screened the original complaint in this action. (Docket # 7.) 8 Judge Wilner concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible cause of 9 action against any of the defendants. The magistrate judge noted that 10 Plaintiff’s complaint specifically identified the dismissed Lancaster case as 11 Franklin v. Moore, No. CV 21-3551 CBM (KK) (C.D. Cal.). However, the 12 docket for the 21-3551 action revealed that the case was dismissed on the 13 merits of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, not based on any alleged 14 interference from the jail. (Docket # 7 at 2-3.) As such, the Court 15 concluded that Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead injury in the derivative 16 21-5837 action. 17 4. The screening order gave Plaintiff leave to amend his 18 complaint. Plaintiff subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint. 19 (Docket # 10.) The FAC acknowledged that Plaintiff erred in claiming that 20 the 21-3551 action had been dismissed due to misconduct by MCJ staff. 21 Instead, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff claimed that another of his 22 Lancaster-based cases - Franklin v. Franklin, No. CV 21-3577 CBM (KK) 23 (C.D. Cal.) – was dismissed because of interference by LA jail officials. 24 5. Judge Wilner again dismissed the action at the screening 25 stage. (Docket # 11.) Judge Wilner reviewed the district court docket in 26 the 21-3577 action. The previous magistrate judge in that case had 27 extended Plaintiff’s filing deadlines several times at Plaintiff’s request. 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-05837-CBM-MRW Document 13 Filed 03/14/23 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:110

1 However, when Plaintiff returned to the Lancaster prison in late 2022, he 2 failed to properly update his mailing address as required under Local 3 Rule 41-6. As a result, court orders (mailed to Plaintiff’s last known 4 residence at the MCJ) were returned as undeliverable. (Docket # 11.) 5 6. The basis for the district court’s termination of the 21-3577 6 action, therefore, was Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pro se address 7 requirement, not any lack of law library access attributable to the 8 Los Angeles jail guards. The assigned district judge confirmed that ruling 9 by denying Plaintiff’s request for relief under Rule 60 in that case. (No. 10 CV 21-3577, Docket # 27.) 11 7. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in the current 12 22-5837 case. (Docket # 12.) The SAC essentially restates the allegations 13 from the FAC regarding the timing of the dismissal of the 21-3577 case. 14 Of note, Plaintiff additionally claimed that, when he was transferred back 15 from MCJ to the Lancaster facility in October 2021, he filed a “notification 16 of change of address” with this Court. (Docket # 12 at 8.) 17 8. A close review of the document to which Plaintiff referred 18 (Id. at 49) reveals that it is a change of address form that Plaintiff sent to 19 the wrong court (California Court of Appeal) in an unrelated action (a state 20 court case involving the Superior Court). No evidence – be it on the federal 21 court docket or in the materials Plaintiff submitted with the three 22 iterations of his current complaint – supports his contention that he 23 properly informed this Court of his move to Lancaster in 2021. 24 * * * 25 9. A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim based 26 on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of facts alleged under 27 such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 28 3 Case 2:22-cv-05837-CBM-MRW Document 13 Filed 03/14/23 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:111

1 Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). A complaint must 2 contain enough facts to establish a “plausible” entitlement to relief that is 3 more than merely speculative. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 4 10. Dismissal of the current action is appropriate. The Court 5 terminated Plaintiff’s earlier civil action (CV 21-3577) because of Plaintiff’s 6 failure to maintain a current address with the Court. It is implausible for 7 him to now maintain a lawsuit against guards at MCJ for allegedly causing 8 the termination of that case. As the Court conclusively determined, his 9 own inaction led to that dismissal.1 Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts 10 that could lead to relief against the MCJ guards. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 11 * * * 12 11. A pro se litigant is ordinarily entitled to amend a defective 13 complaint in an effort to state a proper claim for relief. Lopez v. Smith, 203 14 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). However, this rule does not apply when “the 15 basic facts are alleged and have been analyzed” from a litigant’s pleadings 16 and it is apparent that that Plaintiff “cannot cure the flaws” in his claims. 17 Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). 18 12. Plaintiff has had three opportunities to state a viable claim in 19 the current action. This Court’s familiarity with the basis for its rulings in 20 the earlier c action preclude the possibility that Plaintiff could plead a 21 legitimate cause of action for relief. Dismissal without leave to amend is 22 appropriate. Lipton, 284 F.3d at 1039.

23 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff makes no allegation in the SAC that MCJ guards prevented 27 him from mailing a change of address form to the Court. Indeed, by his own submission (Docket # 12 at 49), he was able to do so. He simply failed to send one 28 to this Court. 4 Case 2:22-cv-05837-CBM-MRW Document13 Filed 03/14/23 Page5of5 Page ID #:112

1 13. Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without 2 | leave to amend. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED > | Dated: MARCH 14, 2023 Ct P= 6 HON. CONSUELO B. MARSHALL 7 SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 9 Presented by: 10 Lf [ | 11 /

12 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28