Norman Charles Pickett v. Juleigh Price, et al.

E.D. California

Norman Charles Pickett v. Juleigh Price, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 21, 2026·No. 2:24-cv-03182·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Case No. 2:24-cv-3182-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JULEIGH PRICE, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brings this action against Juleigh Pierce, K. Montgomery, Johnson, and Woo, all 19 of whom are staff at the California Medical Facility. He alleges that his rights were violated 20 when Pierce was hostile toward him during a Cognitive Behavioral Group meeting and that, 21 ultimately, her hostility prevented him from completing the program—an omission that he claims 22 cost him parole. ECF No. 20 at 3-4. These allegations are, in all relevant respects, identical to 23 the ones that have previously failed to pass screening. Accordingly, I will recommend that this 24 action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 25 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 27 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 28 1 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 3 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 15 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 21 II. Analysis 22 Plaintiff alleges that, in February 2024, he attempted to introduce “literature consistent 23 with [t]hinking for [c]hange” during a Cognitive Behavioral Group (“CBG”) meeting. ECF No. 24 20 at 3. Defendant Pierce, a drug counselor, displayed open animosity toward him during the 25 meeting and allegedly declined to support him or intervene in a verbal argument that arose 26 between him and another inmate. Id. He claims that Pierce’s actions amount to “spiteful conduct 27 under color of state law.” Id. This claim fails because non-physical animosity or verbal insults 28 do not give rise to a claim under section 1983. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 1 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s claim that his failure to complete this program caused him to be 2 denied parole is also non-cognizable, as I explained in my previous screening order. Williams v. 3 Holevinski, 295 F. App’x 167, 168 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The district court properly dismissed without 4 prejudice Williams’ claims alleging that defendants interfered with his parole proceedings 5 because the claims necessarily implicate the validity of his confinement and must be brought in a 6 habeas petition.”). 7 Next, plaintiff claims that, in May 2024, he was approached by staff, including defendants 8 Johnson and Woo, and threatened with disciplinary action if he refused to attend the CBG 9 meeting. ECF No. 20 at 5. This claim is not cognizable, because it does not implicate any 10 violation of plaintiff’s federal rights. Additionally, plaintiff’s claim that Johnson mishandled his 11 grievance fails, as he has no entitlement to any specific grievance process. Ramirez v. Galaza, 12 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 Plaintiff also references other categories of claims, including access to courts, denial of 14 medical care, free exercise of religion, retaliation, and excessive force. ECF No. 20 at 6. He fails 15 to plead any facts that would support any of these categories of claims, however. 16 Based on the foregoing, I will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state 17 a cognizable claim. See Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) 18 (noting that “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments” is a factor to be 19 considered in deciding whether to grant further leave to amend). 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this 21 action. 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 20, 23 be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 20, 2026 q-—— 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Case No. 2:24-cv-3182-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JULEIGH PRICE, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brings this action against Juleigh Pierce, K. Montgomery, Johnson, and Woo, all 19 of whom are staff at the California Medical Facility. He alleges that his rights were violated 20 when Pierce was hostile toward him during a Cognitive Behavioral Group meeting and that, 21 ultimately, her hostility prevented him from completing the program—an omission that he claims 22 cost him parole. ECF No. 20 at 3-4. These allegations are, in all relevant respects, identical to 23 the ones that have previously failed to pass screening. Accordingly, I will recommend that this 24 action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 25 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 27 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 28 1 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 3 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 15 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 21 II. Analysis 22 Plaintiff alleges that, in February 2024, he attempted to introduce “literature consistent 23 with [t]hinking for [c]hange” during a Cognitive Behavioral Group (“CBG”) meeting. ECF No. 24 20 at 3. Defendant Pierce, a drug counselor, displayed open animosity toward him during the 25 meeting and allegedly declined to support him or intervene in a verbal argument that arose 26 between him and another inmate. Id. He claims that Pierce’s actions amount to “spiteful conduct 27 under color of state law.” Id. This claim fails because non-physical animosity or verbal insults 28 do not give rise to a claim under section 1983. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 1 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s claim that his failure to complete this program caused him to be 2 denied parole is also non-cognizable, as I explained in my previous screening order. Williams v. 3 Holevinski, 295 F. App’x 167, 168 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The district court properly dismissed without 4 prejudice Williams’ claims alleging that defendants interfered with his parole proceedings 5 because the claims necessarily implicate the validity of his confinement and must be brought in a 6 habeas petition.”). 7 Next, plaintiff claims that, in May 2024, he was approached by staff, including defendants 8 Johnson and Woo, and threatened with disciplinary action if he refused to attend the CBG 9 meeting. ECF No. 20 at 5. This claim is not cognizable, because it does not implicate any 10 violation of plaintiff’s federal rights. Additionally, plaintiff’s claim that Johnson mishandled his 11 grievance fails, as he has no entitlement to any specific grievance process. Ramirez v. Galaza, 12 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 Plaintiff also references other categories of claims, including access to courts, denial of 14 medical care, free exercise of religion, retaliation, and excessive force. ECF No. 20 at 6. He fails 15 to plead any facts that would support any of these categories of claims, however. 16 Based on the foregoing, I will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state 17 a cognizable claim. See Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) 18 (noting that “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments” is a factor to be 19 considered in deciding whether to grant further leave to amend). 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this 21 action. 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 20, 23 be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 20, 2026 q-—— 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Norman Charles Pickett v. Juleigh Price, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Norman Charles Pickett v. Juleigh Price, et al. (Norman Charles Pickett v. Juleigh Price, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related