Navarrette v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 14, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-01147
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TOMMY NAVARRETTE, Case No. 22-cv-01147-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

10 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 5 OFFICE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, a former detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 14 § 1983. 15 DISCUSSION 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 18 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 22 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 23 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement 25 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not 26 need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 27 ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 1 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 2 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough 3 facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States 4 Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While 5 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by 6 factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should 7 assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an 8 entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right 10 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged 11 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 12 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 LEGAL CLAIMS 14 Plaintiff states that he was not compensated for a jail job and he challenges the 15 working conditions. 16 Prisoners have no constitutional right to be paid for their services. Serra v. Lappin, 17 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Piatt v. MacDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th 18 Cir. 1985) (no deprivation of liberty interest when prisoner forced to work without pay, nor 19 does requiring such work subject prisoner to involuntary servitude in violation of the 20 Thirteenth Amendment)). They also have no right to tenure in their prison jobs. Lyon v. 21 Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 1984). Therefore, whatever liberty or property 22 interests inhere in prison employment are the product of state law. See id. 23 Further, prisoners generally are not protected by federal or state labor laws, since 24 the economic realities of prison employment seldom make them “employees” entitled to 25 such protections. See Morgan v. MacDonald, 41 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1994) 26 (prisoner working under state statute requiring 40 hours weekly work or training not 27 “employee” under FLSA); see also Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1392-98 (9th Cir.) (en 1 denied, 510 U.S. 946 (1993); Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2013 2 (prisoner working for prison contractor not employee under ADA because his labor 3 belongs to state); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1331 (9th Cir. 1991) 4 (no employment relationship since labor belongs to institution). 5 Plaintiff accepted a job at the jail where he was detained and argues that there 6 was no monetary compensation or any other benefit to working. He takes issues with the 7 approximate seven-hour workdays that were required and that he had to be on call. He 8 challenges the work culture and states that jail staff often favored other inmate 9 employees and he was treated cruelly. Plaintiff was informed that he could quit if he 10 objected to the job. Pursuant to the legal standards set forth above, plaintiff’s allegations 11 fail to state a federal claim. To the extent plaintiff argues there were violations of state 12 law, he must seek relief in state court. 13 He will be provided one opportunity to amend to state a federal claim. If plaintiff 14 files an amended complaint, he must set forth his claims and briefly describe how the 15 named defendants violated his rights. An amended complaint may not exceed 16 twenty-five pages. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 5) are 19 GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent restraining order (Docket No. 3) is 20 DENIED without prejudice. If plaintiff is able to present cognizable federal claims, he 21 may refile the motion and address claims that have been brought in the complaint. 22 2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. An amended complaint 23 must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must 24 include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED 25 COMPLAINT on the first page. An amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five 26 pages. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, 27 plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 1 complaint by reference. 2 3. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 3 court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 4 “Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely 5 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 6 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: March 14, 2022 9 10 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 11 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27