1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 JOSHUA HER RERA, Case No. 24-cv-0578 6 BLF 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE; DIRECTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 14 NOTICE REGARDING SUCH M. AGUILERA, et al., MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO 15 CLERK Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state parolee, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) where he was formerly 20 incarcerated. Dkt. No. 1. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to 21 correct various deficiencies. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 22 7. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 I. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 5 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 7 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 8 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 9 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Claims 11 In the amended complaint, Plaintiff states two causes of action against the following 12 defendants at SVSP: M. Aguilera, CCRA1; S. Ramirez, CCRA; G. Verduzco, CCRA; J. 13 Payton, CCRA; Farley Principal; Borla, CDW; C. Schuyler, Warden; and R. Rodriguez, 14 CCRA. Dkt. No. 7 at 2. The two causes of action are as follows: (1) Fifth and Fourteenth 15 Amendment violations of due process for denying him “earned two milestone completion 16 credits” (“MCCs”) totaling forty-five days, id. at 2-4; and (2) violation of his right to equal 17 protection by the denial of MCCs while similarly situated inmates received the MCCs, id. 18 at 5-6. Id. at 7. 19 Because Plaintiff is paroled, he states a cognizable due process claim for the denial 20 of credits. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (where prisoner’s claim 21 would not “necessarily spell speedier release, suit may be brought under § 1983); see also 22 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (section 1983 action is the 23 24 1 CCRA stands for “Correctional Case Records Analyst.” The job description and duties 25 include performing complex technical work in processing, maintenance, and control of inmate and parolee records, as well as preparing documents and records information 26 relating to inmate classification, transfer, release from and return to prison, and other actions affecting legal status. 1 exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 2 corpus). 3 Regarding the second claim for equal protection violation, this claim in the original 4 complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because Plaintiff failed to identify the 5 protected class or explain how specific defendants’ actions were discriminatory. Dkt. No. 6 3 at 3-4. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no 7 State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which 8 is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of 9 Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). When challenging his 10 treatment with regard to other prisoners, courts have held that in order to present an equal 11 protection claim a prisoner must allege that his treatment is invidiously dissimilar to that 12 received by other inmates. More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 271-72 (8th Cir. 1993) (absent 13 evidence of invidious discrimination, federal courts should defer to judgment of prison 14 officials). The first step in determining whether the inmate’s equal protection rights were 15 violated is to identify the relevant class of prisoners to which he belongs. Furnace v. 16 Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). The class must be comprised of similarly 17 situated persons so that the factor motivating the alleged discrimination can be identified. 18 Id. at 1031 19 In his attempt to rectify the deficiency of this claim in the original complaint, 20 Plaintiff alleges that he was “an incarcerated minority, a determinately sentenced youth 21 offender and is now on parole” and “due to staff errors and discriminatory acts,” he was 22 not afforded equal protection. Dkt. No. 7 at 5. He alleges that “all those similarly situated 23 incarcerated individuals, minorities, determinately sentenced youth offenders were 24 afforded and received the MCCs” while he was not. Id. These allegations do not state an 25 equal protection claim. Rather, Plaintiff would have to allege that everyone who earned 26 MCCs received the credit but he did not because Defendants discriminated against him as 1 a member of a protected class, e.g., Hispanics. However, Plaintiff alleges that everyone 2 who is like him, i.e., “minorities,” did in fact get MCCs but he did not. At best Plaintiff 3 has alleged some sort of error, but not discrimination based on his membership in a 4 protected class which is necessary to state an equal protection claim. 5 Because Plaintiff was already afforded an opportunity to amend, the Court finds no 6 good cause to grant him another opportunity where the deficiencies from the prior 7 complaint remain the same. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2003) 8 (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend particularly broad where plaintiff has 9 previously filed an amended complaint); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 10 1992). Accordingly, this equal protection claim must be dismissed for failure to state a 11 claim for relief. 12 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 15 1. The equal protection claim under the second cause of action is DISMISSED 16 with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. This action shall proceed solely on the 17 due process claim for the denial of MCCs. 18 2. The following Defendants shall be served at Salinas Valley State Prison: 19 a. M. Aguilera, CCRA 20 b. S. Ramirez, CCRA 21 c. G. Verduzco, CCRA 22 d. J. Payton, CCRA 23 e. Farley Principal 24 f. Borla, CDW 25 g. C. Schuyler, Warden 26 h. R.
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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 JOSHUA HER RERA, Case No. 24-cv-0578 6 BLF 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE; DIRECTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 14 NOTICE REGARDING SUCH M. AGUILERA, et al., MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO 15 CLERK Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state parolee, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) where he was formerly 20 incarcerated. Dkt. No. 1. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to 21 correct various deficiencies. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 22 7. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 I. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 5 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 7 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 8 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 9 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Claims 11 In the amended complaint, Plaintiff states two causes of action against the following 12 defendants at SVSP: M. Aguilera, CCRA1; S. Ramirez, CCRA; G. Verduzco, CCRA; J. 13 Payton, CCRA; Farley Principal; Borla, CDW; C. Schuyler, Warden; and R. Rodriguez, 14 CCRA. Dkt. No. 7 at 2. The two causes of action are as follows: (1) Fifth and Fourteenth 15 Amendment violations of due process for denying him “earned two milestone completion 16 credits” (“MCCs”) totaling forty-five days, id. at 2-4; and (2) violation of his right to equal 17 protection by the denial of MCCs while similarly situated inmates received the MCCs, id. 18 at 5-6. Id. at 7. 19 Because Plaintiff is paroled, he states a cognizable due process claim for the denial 20 of credits. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (where prisoner’s claim 21 would not “necessarily spell speedier release, suit may be brought under § 1983); see also 22 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (section 1983 action is the 23 24 1 CCRA stands for “Correctional Case Records Analyst.” The job description and duties 25 include performing complex technical work in processing, maintenance, and control of inmate and parolee records, as well as preparing documents and records information 26 relating to inmate classification, transfer, release from and return to prison, and other actions affecting legal status. 1 exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 2 corpus). 3 Regarding the second claim for equal protection violation, this claim in the original 4 complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because Plaintiff failed to identify the 5 protected class or explain how specific defendants’ actions were discriminatory. Dkt. No. 6 3 at 3-4. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no 7 State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which 8 is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of 9 Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). When challenging his 10 treatment with regard to other prisoners, courts have held that in order to present an equal 11 protection claim a prisoner must allege that his treatment is invidiously dissimilar to that 12 received by other inmates. More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 271-72 (8th Cir. 1993) (absent 13 evidence of invidious discrimination, federal courts should defer to judgment of prison 14 officials). The first step in determining whether the inmate’s equal protection rights were 15 violated is to identify the relevant class of prisoners to which he belongs. Furnace v. 16 Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). The class must be comprised of similarly 17 situated persons so that the factor motivating the alleged discrimination can be identified. 18 Id. at 1031 19 In his attempt to rectify the deficiency of this claim in the original complaint, 20 Plaintiff alleges that he was “an incarcerated minority, a determinately sentenced youth 21 offender and is now on parole” and “due to staff errors and discriminatory acts,” he was 22 not afforded equal protection. Dkt. No. 7 at 5. He alleges that “all those similarly situated 23 incarcerated individuals, minorities, determinately sentenced youth offenders were 24 afforded and received the MCCs” while he was not. Id. These allegations do not state an 25 equal protection claim. Rather, Plaintiff would have to allege that everyone who earned 26 MCCs received the credit but he did not because Defendants discriminated against him as 1 a member of a protected class, e.g., Hispanics. However, Plaintiff alleges that everyone 2 who is like him, i.e., “minorities,” did in fact get MCCs but he did not. At best Plaintiff 3 has alleged some sort of error, but not discrimination based on his membership in a 4 protected class which is necessary to state an equal protection claim. 5 Because Plaintiff was already afforded an opportunity to amend, the Court finds no 6 good cause to grant him another opportunity where the deficiencies from the prior 7 complaint remain the same. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2003) 8 (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend particularly broad where plaintiff has 9 previously filed an amended complaint); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 10 1992). Accordingly, this equal protection claim must be dismissed for failure to state a 11 claim for relief. 12 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 15 1. The equal protection claim under the second cause of action is DISMISSED 16 with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. This action shall proceed solely on the 17 due process claim for the denial of MCCs. 18 2. The following Defendants shall be served at Salinas Valley State Prison: 19 a. M. Aguilera, CCRA 20 b. S. Ramirez, CCRA 21 c. G. Verduzco, CCRA 22 d. J. Payton, CCRA 23 e. Farley Principal 24 f. Borla, CDW 25 g. C. Schuyler, Warden 26 h. R. Rodriguez, CCRA 1 Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of 2 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) e-service program for civil rights cases from 3 prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the clerk is directed to serve 4 on CDCR via email the following documents: the operative complaint and any attachments 5 thereto, Dkt. No. 7, the Court’s initial screening order, Dkt. No. 3, this order of service, 6 and a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this 7 order on the plaintiff. 8 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall 9 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 10 defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for 11 service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline to 12 waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR 13 Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 14 days, shall file with the court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are 15 waiving service. 16 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the clerk shall prepare for 17 each defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service 18 Waiver a USM-205 Form. The clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 19 forms and copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for service upon 20 each defendant who has not waived service. The clerk also shall provide to the USMS a 21 copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver. 22 3. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 23 Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 24 respect to the claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above. 25 a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 26 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 1 Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 2 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the 3 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 4 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 5 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the 6 Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate 7 warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See 8 Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 9 4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 10 and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 11 motion is filed. 12 Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 13 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment 14 must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential 15 element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to 16 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to 17 the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See 18 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 19 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after 21 Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 22 6. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 23 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 24 7. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on 25 Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 26 copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 1 8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 2 || Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 3 || Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 4 9. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 5 || court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a 6 || timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 7 || prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 10. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be g || extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: _ April 11, 2025 Ais / Whaeh 4 | BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 23 15 16
Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1 Order of Partial Dism. and Service P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\05786Herrera_svc 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26