(PC) Mendoza v. Matteson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN GILBERT MENDOZA, No. 2:23-CV-0810-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 G. MATTESON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 8 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) G. Matteson, the warden at 9 California State Prison – Solano (CSP Solano); (2) T. Tyler, the chief deputy warden at CSP 10 Solano; (3) R. Jackson, the associate warden at CSP Solano; (4) D. Brida, a correctional captain 11 at CSP Solano; and (5) T. Baker, a correctional sergeant at CSP Solano. See ECF No. 1, pgs. 2-3. 12 Plaintiff alleges that he is only being allowed contact visitation with his wife and children on 13 Fridays and Saturdays, which creates a hardship for his family because they are located 130 miles 14 away from the prison and are required to rent a hotel room for one night. See id. at 11-12. 15 Plaintiff states that he cannot receive contact visitation on Fridays because his wife works on 16 Fridays. See id. at 12. While visitation is allowed on Sundays, it is only allowed by video, which 17 was a policy instituted during the pandemic lock-down. See id. 18 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 21 can be granted. 22 The Due Process Clause does not guarantee a right of unfettered visitation. See 23 Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1989); see also Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 24 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). Prisoners have no 25 constitutional right to contact visitation except with their attorneys as part of the right of access to 26 the courts under the First Amendment. See Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1202-03 (9th Cir. 27 2010); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 817 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 28 1516, 1523 (9th Cir. 1993); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 1986), 1 | abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Overton v. 2 | Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 133-36 (2003). 3 Here, Plaintiff does not claim that all visitation has been denied. To the contrary, 4 | Plaintiff admits that he is being permitted contact visitation with his family, but not on days he 5 || prefers. Because Plaintiff does not have a right to unfettered visitation, and because Plaintiff is 6 || being permitted contact visitation as well as visitation by video, Plaintiff cannot prevail in this 7 || case. 8 9 Il. CONCLUSION 10 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 11 | cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 12 || the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 13 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 14 | for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 19 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 20 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 || Dated: August 16, 2023 Co 23 DENNIS M. COTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28