1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD DEAN YANDELL, No. 2:21-cv-00469 DAD AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER FINDING SERVICE APPROPRIATE AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND 14 DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS REMAINING DEFENDANTS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff was, at the time of filing, a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned 19 by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a third amended 20 complaint that is now before the court for screening. ECF No. 54. 21 I. Screening Requirement 22 As plaintiff was previously advised, the court is required to screen complaints brought by 23 prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 24 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 25 prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 28 ///// 1 II. Allegations in the Third Amended Complaint 2 At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was a federal 3 pretrial detainee held in custody at the Sacramento County Main Jail. The third amended 4 complaint challenges various conditions of his confinement at the jail. Plaintiff names the 5 Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, Commander Brandon Luke, Assistant Commanders 6 McKrasie and Hampton, Sergeants Schaller, Pfau, and Saika, as well as Chaplain Terry Toliver as 7 defendants in this action. 8 In his first claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that defendants Jones, Luke, Hampton, Saika, 9 Pfau, Schaller, and McKrasie violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by 10 arbitrarily placing him in the total separation housing unit (“TSEP”) without any notice or a 11 hearing. Plaintiff raises a First Amendment violation against defendants Jones, Luke, Schaller, 12 and McKraise for failing to provide him with a confidential room for his attorney-client visits 13 concerning his pending federal criminal charges.1 Lastly, plaintiff asserts a First Amendment free 14 exercise claim against defendant Toliver for denying him a vegetarian diet that is consistent with 15 his Buddhist beliefs. Plaintiff filed numerous grievances concerning these conditions of 16 confinement which were denied by defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau. 17 III. Legal Standards 18 The existence of a prison grievance procedure establishes a procedural right only and 19 “does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 20 (8th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) 21 (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance 22 procedure). This means that a prison official’s action in reviewing an inmate grievance cannot 23 serve as a basis for liability under Section 1983. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. “Only persons who 24 cause or participate in the violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an 25 administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation. A guard who stands and 26 watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the Constitution; a guard who rejects an 27 1 It should be pointed out that plaintiff does not allege a separate Sixth Amendment violation as 28 part of this claim. 1 administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not.” George v. Smith, 507 2 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 3 IV. Analysis 4 Upon conducting the required screening, the undersigned finds that the complaint 5 sufficiently alleges a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendants Jones, Luke, 6 and Saika based on plaintiff’s placement in the TSEP; a First Amendment violation against 7 defendants Jones and Luke for failing to provide a confidential attorney-client visitation area; and 8 a First Amendment free exercise claim against defendant Toliver for failing to provide plaintiff 9 with a vegetarian diet consistent with his Buddhist beliefs. If the allegations of the amended 10 complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of these 11 claims. Therefore, the court will direct plaintiff to complete the documents required to serve 12 defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika with the third amended complaint.2 13 Plaintiff has failed to state a separate claim for relief against defendants McKrasie, 14 Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau based solely on their review of his administrative grievances. 15 Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Plaintiff does not allege that these defendants personally participated 16 in any other violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that 17 defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau be dismissed from this action. It is further 18 recommended that leave to amend the complaint be denied as it does not appear to the court that 19 the defects with respect to these defendants are curable. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. 20 Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to 21 amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 22 V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 23 Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 24 the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 25 in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 26 //// 27
28 2 Defendant Toliver has already been served and entered an appearance in this case. 1 The court has reviewed the allegations in your third amended complaint and determined 2 that some state cognizable claims and others do not. The court is ordering service on defendants 3 Jones, Luke, Saika, and Toliver. To proceed with the claims against these defendnats, you must 4 complete and return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents form within 30 days. 5 The undersigned is recommending that defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and 6 Pfau be dismissed from this action for failing to state a claim against them. Reviewing the 7 administrative grievances that you filed pertaining to your conditions of confinement is not 8 sufficient to state a constitutional violation by these defendants. Since this defect is not curable, 9 the undersigned is recommending that these defendants be dismissed without leave to amend. 10 If you disagree with this recommendation, you may explain why it is not the correct outcome 11 within 14 days from the date of this order. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate 12 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 13 CONCLUSION 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants Jones, Luke, Saika, and Toliver. 16 2.
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 RONALD DEAN YANDELL, No. 2:21-cv-00469 DAD AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER FINDING SERVICE APPROPRIATE AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND 14 DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS REMAINING DEFENDANTS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff was, at the time of filing, a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned 19 by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a third amended 20 complaint that is now before the court for screening. ECF No. 54. 21 I. Screening Requirement 22 As plaintiff was previously advised, the court is required to screen complaints brought by 23 prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 24 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 25 prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 28 ///// 1 II. Allegations in the Third Amended Complaint 2 At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was a federal 3 pretrial detainee held in custody at the Sacramento County Main Jail. The third amended 4 complaint challenges various conditions of his confinement at the jail. Plaintiff names the 5 Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, Commander Brandon Luke, Assistant Commanders 6 McKrasie and Hampton, Sergeants Schaller, Pfau, and Saika, as well as Chaplain Terry Toliver as 7 defendants in this action. 8 In his first claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that defendants Jones, Luke, Hampton, Saika, 9 Pfau, Schaller, and McKrasie violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by 10 arbitrarily placing him in the total separation housing unit (“TSEP”) without any notice or a 11 hearing. Plaintiff raises a First Amendment violation against defendants Jones, Luke, Schaller, 12 and McKraise for failing to provide him with a confidential room for his attorney-client visits 13 concerning his pending federal criminal charges.1 Lastly, plaintiff asserts a First Amendment free 14 exercise claim against defendant Toliver for denying him a vegetarian diet that is consistent with 15 his Buddhist beliefs. Plaintiff filed numerous grievances concerning these conditions of 16 confinement which were denied by defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau. 17 III. Legal Standards 18 The existence of a prison grievance procedure establishes a procedural right only and 19 “does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 20 (8th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) 21 (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance 22 procedure). This means that a prison official’s action in reviewing an inmate grievance cannot 23 serve as a basis for liability under Section 1983. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. “Only persons who 24 cause or participate in the violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an 25 administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation. A guard who stands and 26 watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the Constitution; a guard who rejects an 27 1 It should be pointed out that plaintiff does not allege a separate Sixth Amendment violation as 28 part of this claim. 1 administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not.” George v. Smith, 507 2 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 3 IV. Analysis 4 Upon conducting the required screening, the undersigned finds that the complaint 5 sufficiently alleges a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendants Jones, Luke, 6 and Saika based on plaintiff’s placement in the TSEP; a First Amendment violation against 7 defendants Jones and Luke for failing to provide a confidential attorney-client visitation area; and 8 a First Amendment free exercise claim against defendant Toliver for failing to provide plaintiff 9 with a vegetarian diet consistent with his Buddhist beliefs. If the allegations of the amended 10 complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of these 11 claims. Therefore, the court will direct plaintiff to complete the documents required to serve 12 defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika with the third amended complaint.2 13 Plaintiff has failed to state a separate claim for relief against defendants McKrasie, 14 Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau based solely on their review of his administrative grievances. 15 Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Plaintiff does not allege that these defendants personally participated 16 in any other violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that 17 defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau be dismissed from this action. It is further 18 recommended that leave to amend the complaint be denied as it does not appear to the court that 19 the defects with respect to these defendants are curable. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. 20 Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to 21 amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 22 V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 23 Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 24 the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 25 in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 26 //// 27
28 2 Defendant Toliver has already been served and entered an appearance in this case. 1 The court has reviewed the allegations in your third amended complaint and determined 2 that some state cognizable claims and others do not. The court is ordering service on defendants 3 Jones, Luke, Saika, and Toliver. To proceed with the claims against these defendnats, you must 4 complete and return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents form within 30 days. 5 The undersigned is recommending that defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and 6 Pfau be dismissed from this action for failing to state a claim against them. Reviewing the 7 administrative grievances that you filed pertaining to your conditions of confinement is not 8 sufficient to state a constitutional violation by these defendants. Since this defect is not curable, 9 the undersigned is recommending that these defendants be dismissed without leave to amend. 10 If you disagree with this recommendation, you may explain why it is not the correct outcome 11 within 14 days from the date of this order. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate 12 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 13 CONCLUSION 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants Jones, Luke, Saika, and Toliver. 16 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms for defendants Jones, 17 Luke and Saika, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the third amended complaint 18 docketed on December 4, 2023. 19 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 20 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 21 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 22 b. One completed summons; 23 c. One completed USM-285 form for defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika; and 24 d. Four copies of the endorsed third amended complaint docketed on December 4, 25 2023. 26 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 27 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 28 //// 1 | serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 2 || of costs. 3 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and 4 || Pfau be dismissed from this action without leave to amend for failing to state a claim against 5 || them. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 11 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 12 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | DATED: April 1, 2024 15 _f
16 ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD DEAN YANDELL, No. 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION 14 DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed 18 _____________________: 19 ____ completed summons form 20 ____ completed USM-285 forms 21 ____ copies of the ___________________ Third Amended Complaint 22
23 DATED:
24 ________________________________ 25 Plaintiff 26 27 28