1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVAUGHN ROBINSON, No. 2:22-cv-1585 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CSP-SACRAMENTO A1, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 28 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 1 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 Screening Standards 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 16 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 17 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 18 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 19 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 20 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 21 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 22 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 23 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 24 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 25 The Civil Rights Act 26 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal 27 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 28 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 1 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 2 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 3 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 4 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 5 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 6 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 7 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 8 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including 9 by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, 10 or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 11 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 Discussion 13 Plaintiff names seven individuals and CSP-Sacramento as defendants. As to CSP- 14 Sacramento, however, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by 15 private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. 16 See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); 17 Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of 18 California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against CSP-Sacramento are 19 legally frivolous and must be dismissed. 20 In addition, plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts as to each named defendant. Plaintiff 21 states that the alleged violations took place daily for over three months, but plaintiff fails to 22 explain how each individual defendant forced plaintiff to tie herself up and anally masturbate for 23 them using inanimate objects in front of the unit surveillance system. 24 Individuals in prison have a constitutional right under the Eighth Amendment to be free 25 from sexual harassment or abuse. Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012).
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 JAVAUGHN ROBINSON, No. 2:22-cv-1585 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CSP-SACRAMENTO A1, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 28 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 1 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 Screening Standards 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 16 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 17 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 18 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 19 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 20 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 21 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 22 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 23 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 24 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 25 The Civil Rights Act 26 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal 27 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 28 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 1 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 2 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 3 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 4 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 5 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 6 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 7 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 8 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including 9 by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, 10 or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 11 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 Discussion 13 Plaintiff names seven individuals and CSP-Sacramento as defendants. As to CSP- 14 Sacramento, however, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by 15 private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. 16 See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); 17 Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of 18 California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against CSP-Sacramento are 19 legally frivolous and must be dismissed. 20 In addition, plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts as to each named defendant. Plaintiff 21 states that the alleged violations took place daily for over three months, but plaintiff fails to 22 explain how each individual defendant forced plaintiff to tie herself up and anally masturbate for 23 them using inanimate objects in front of the unit surveillance system. 24 Individuals in prison have a constitutional right under the Eighth Amendment to be free 25 from sexual harassment or abuse. Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012). To 26 state a cognizable sexual assault claim, a plaintiff must plead facts indicating that “a prison staff 27 member, acting under color of law and without legitimate penological justification, touched 28 [plaintiff] in a sexual manner or otherwise engaged in sexual conduct for the staff member’s own 1 sexual gratification, or for the purpose of humiliating, degrading or demeaning the prisoner.” 2 Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1144 (9th Cir. 2020). 3 When evaluating a prisoner’s sexual assault claim against a correctional officer, courts 4 should consider “whether ‘the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind’ and if 5 the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation.” 6 Johnson v. Frauenheim, 2021 WL 5236498, *11 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) (findings and 7 recommendations adopted by Johnson v. Frauenheim, 2021 WL 5982293 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 8 2021)) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). 9 Here, there is no allegation that a defendant touched plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff must 10 allege facts demonstrating that each defendant “engaged in sexual conduct for the staff member’s 11 own sexual gratification, or for the purpose of humiliating, degrading or demeaning” plaintiff.1 12 Bearchild, 947 F.3d at 1144. 13 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 14 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 15 court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required 16 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 17 complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones 18 v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least 19 some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. 20 Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the 21 complaint must be dismissed. The court, however, grants leave to file an amended complaint. 22
23 1 In addition to alleging cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff alleges defendants’ actions violated plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff fails to identify 24 facts that would support a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the claim as plead is subsumed by the Eighth Amendment and does not state a separate claim. See Albright v. 25 Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (“Where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that 26 Amendment, not the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for 27 analyzing such a claim.”) (internal quotes and citation omitted); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327(1986) (the Fourteenth Amendment affords a prisoner no greater protection than the Eighth 28 Amendment). 1 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 2 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 3 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 4 each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there 5 is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 6 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 7 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 8 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of 9 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 10 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 11 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 12 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement is 13 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. 14 Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 15 pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 16 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 17 alleged. 18 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 20 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 21 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 23 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 24 herewith. 25 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 26 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 27 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 28 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number 1 | assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and 2 || two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 3 || this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 4 | Dated: February 28, 2023 Foci) Aharon 6 KENDALL J. NE /robil 585.14.new UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28