1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY JAY MCCLOUD, Case No. 2:24-cv-0687-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v.
14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants Solano 19 County Sheriff’s Department, Castillo, and Smyth violated his rights by punishing him without 20 due process. ECF No. 7 at 4. Specifically, he contends that Castillo placed him in punitive, 21 segregated housing without affording him a disciplinary hearing. Id. His allegations against 22 Castillo are, for screening purposes, cognizable. As explained below, however, the complaint 23 fails to state a viable claim against any other defendant. Given that plaintiff has already been 24 afforded a chance to amend and is no closer to stating a claim against any other defendant, I 25 recommend that defendants Solano County Sheriff’s Department and Smyth be dismissed. 26 Plaintiff should submit service documents for defendant Castillo. 27
28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 4 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(e)(2). A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to 6 relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 7 on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does 8 not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 9 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 10 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 11 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 12 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 13 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 14 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 15 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 16 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 17 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 18 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 19 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 20 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 21 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 22 II. Analysis 23 Plaintiff alleges that on August 23, 2023, defendant Castillo, an officer at the Justice 24 Center Detention Facility in Fairfield, California, ordered him placed in an isolation unit without 25 first conducting a disciplinary hearing. ECF No. 7 at 4. He claims that Castillo also placed him 26 in separate segregated housing on September 19, 2023, again without adequate process. Id. at 6. 27 These allegations are sufficient to state cognizable due process claims against Castillo. 28 Separately, plaintiff alleges that defendant Smyth violated facility rules, which stated that 1 a hearing was to be conducted within seventy-two hours of the alleged violation. Id. at 7-8. As I 2 informed plaintiff in my previous screening order, a violation of a jail’s own procedures does not, 3 on its own, give rise to a violation of federal law. See Randle v. Contra Costa Cnty. Sheriff’s 4 Dep’t, No. 24-cv-02099-JSC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94461, *7 (N.D. Cal. May, 28, 2024) (“The 5 violation of jail policy in and of itself is not actionable under Section 1983, which applies to the 6 violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”). To comport with 7 federal due process, a pretrial detainee at a disciplinary hearing must be allowed to call witnesses 8 and present evidence in his defense. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); see also 9 Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 525 (9th Cir. 1996) (due process requirements for pretrial 10 detainee disciplinary hearing set out in Wolff). Federal due process does not require that the 11 hearing be conducted within seventy-two hours. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against Smyth 12 fails. 13 Finally, as I also explained before, plaintiff has failed to state any viable claim against the 14 Solano County Sheriff’s Department. To state a claim against a municipal agency, plaintiff must 15 allege that some custom or policy played a part in violating his rights under federal law. See 16 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“[I]n an official-capacity suit, the entity’s policy 17 or custom must have played a part in the violation of federal law.”) (internal quotation omitted). 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 19 1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 20 case. 21 2. Plaintiff may proceed with the Due Process claims against Castillo deemed 22 cognizable in this order. 23 3. The clerk of court shall send plaintiff a USM-285 form, a summons, a Notice of 24 Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed August 25 12, 2024, ECF No. 7. 26 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 27 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 28 following documents: ] a. one completed summons for the defendant; 2 b. one completed USM-285 forms; and 3 c. two copies of the signed August 12, 2024 complaint. 4 5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of 5 || service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals 6 || Service to serve the above defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without 7 || payment of costs by plaintiff. 8 6. The failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for 9 || failure to prosecute. 10 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claims against defendants Solano County 11 | Sheriff's Department and Smyth be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
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 RICKY JAY MCCLOUD, Case No. 2:24-cv-0687-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v.
14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants Solano 19 County Sheriff’s Department, Castillo, and Smyth violated his rights by punishing him without 20 due process. ECF No. 7 at 4. Specifically, he contends that Castillo placed him in punitive, 21 segregated housing without affording him a disciplinary hearing. Id. His allegations against 22 Castillo are, for screening purposes, cognizable. As explained below, however, the complaint 23 fails to state a viable claim against any other defendant. Given that plaintiff has already been 24 afforded a chance to amend and is no closer to stating a claim against any other defendant, I 25 recommend that defendants Solano County Sheriff’s Department and Smyth be dismissed. 26 Plaintiff should submit service documents for defendant Castillo. 27
28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 4 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(e)(2). A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to 6 relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 7 on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does 8 not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 9 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 10 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 11 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 12 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 13 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 14 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 15 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 16 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 17 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 18 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 19 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 20 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 21 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 22 II. Analysis 23 Plaintiff alleges that on August 23, 2023, defendant Castillo, an officer at the Justice 24 Center Detention Facility in Fairfield, California, ordered him placed in an isolation unit without 25 first conducting a disciplinary hearing. ECF No. 7 at 4. He claims that Castillo also placed him 26 in separate segregated housing on September 19, 2023, again without adequate process. Id. at 6. 27 These allegations are sufficient to state cognizable due process claims against Castillo. 28 Separately, plaintiff alleges that defendant Smyth violated facility rules, which stated that 1 a hearing was to be conducted within seventy-two hours of the alleged violation. Id. at 7-8. As I 2 informed plaintiff in my previous screening order, a violation of a jail’s own procedures does not, 3 on its own, give rise to a violation of federal law. See Randle v. Contra Costa Cnty. Sheriff’s 4 Dep’t, No. 24-cv-02099-JSC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94461, *7 (N.D. Cal. May, 28, 2024) (“The 5 violation of jail policy in and of itself is not actionable under Section 1983, which applies to the 6 violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”). To comport with 7 federal due process, a pretrial detainee at a disciplinary hearing must be allowed to call witnesses 8 and present evidence in his defense. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); see also 9 Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 525 (9th Cir. 1996) (due process requirements for pretrial 10 detainee disciplinary hearing set out in Wolff). Federal due process does not require that the 11 hearing be conducted within seventy-two hours. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against Smyth 12 fails. 13 Finally, as I also explained before, plaintiff has failed to state any viable claim against the 14 Solano County Sheriff’s Department. To state a claim against a municipal agency, plaintiff must 15 allege that some custom or policy played a part in violating his rights under federal law. See 16 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“[I]n an official-capacity suit, the entity’s policy 17 or custom must have played a part in the violation of federal law.”) (internal quotation omitted). 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 19 1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 20 case. 21 2. Plaintiff may proceed with the Due Process claims against Castillo deemed 22 cognizable in this order. 23 3. The clerk of court shall send plaintiff a USM-285 form, a summons, a Notice of 24 Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed August 25 12, 2024, ECF No. 7. 26 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 27 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 28 following documents: ] a. one completed summons for the defendant; 2 b. one completed USM-285 forms; and 3 c. two copies of the signed August 12, 2024 complaint. 4 5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of 5 || service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals 6 || Service to serve the above defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without 7 || payment of costs by plaintiff. 8 6. The failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for 9 || failure to prosecute. 10 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claims against defendants Solano County 11 | Sheriff's Department and Smyth be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 17 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 18 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 19 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 20 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ( 1 St = Dated: _ December 20, 2024 ———- 24 JEREMY D. PETERSON 95 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26 27 28
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICKY JAY MCCLOUD, Case No. 2:24-cv-0687-JDP (P) 8 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 9 DOCUMENTS v. 10 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF 11 DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff must submit: 19 1 completed summons form 20 1 completed forms USM-285 21 2 copies of the August 12, 2024 complaint 22 23 24 _________________________________ 25 Plaintiff 26 Dated: 27 28