Shaun Darnell Garland v. Bolina, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01494
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, No. 2:22-cv-01494-DJC-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BOLINA, et al.,, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court has dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint, with leave to 20 amend the claims for damages under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities 21 Act. ECF Nos. 35, 37. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is now before the court for 22 screening. ECF No. 43. 23 I. Screening 24 A. Legal Standards 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 28 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 3 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 5 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 6 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 8 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 9 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 11 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 12 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 14 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 15 678. 16 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 18 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 21 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 22 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 24 Plaintiff formerly asserted claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 25 U.S. Constitution and under the Americans with Disabilities and Rehabilitation Acts (ADA and 26 RA, respectively) against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California 27 Correctional Health Care Services, and various individual defendants. The court dismissed the 28 Eighth and 14th Amendment claims on screening the amended complaint, because plaintiff had 1 not alleged sufficient facts to state potentially cognizable claims. ECF No. 12. 2 The court subsequently granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s ADA and RA 3 claims, finding that plaintiff had failed to allege facts showing intentional discrimination as was 4 required to obtain damages under those statutes. ECF Nos. 35, 37. The court granted plaintiff 5 leave to amend the damages claims. Id. (The court also dismissed plaintiff’s claims for 6 declaratory relief under the statutes without leave to amend.) Rather than amending the ADA and 7 RA claims, plaintiff has changed course to allege a single claim for retaliation in violation of the 8 First Amendment against a single defendant, Romero. 9 Plaintiff alleges that, during 2021 and 2022, inmates housed in the E-facility of California 10 Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF) who participated in the prison’s Enhanced Outpatient 11 Program (EOP) complained about inadequate mental health treatment. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff 12 does not allege that he himself complained. Defendant Romero, E-facility captain, retaliated 13 against the E-facility EOP inmate population by transferring about 60% of them and reclassifying 14 two EOP housing units as general population units. Id. In addition, “[i]ncarcerated 15 individuals/patients were prevented from attending the Big Recreational Yard . . . to the manner 16 [they] had been accustomed to and able to without restriction before the retaliatory measures 17 implemented by Captain Romero went into effect.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff complained but the 18 restriction on yard access remained. Id. 19 C. Analysis 20 To state a viable First Amendment retaliation claim, a prisoner must allege five elements: 21 “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) 22 that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 23 Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 24 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Conduct protected by the First 25 Amendment includes communications that are “part of the grievance process.” Brodheim v. Cry, 26 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009). 27 Individuals generally lack standing to enforce the constitutional rights of others. Jackson 28 v. Official Representatives & Employees of Los Angeles Police Dep't, 487 F.2d 885, 886 (9th Cir. 1 |} 1973). It is an open question whether, and in what circumstances, the Constitution protects an 2 | individual from retaliation motivated by the conduct of a close personal associate. DeFrancesco 3 | v. Robbins, 136 F.4th 933 (9th Cir. 2025). Because plaintiff has not alleged that defendant’s 4 || allegedly retaliatory actions were taken in response his, or a close personal associate’s, protected 5 || conduct, the second amended complaint must be dismissed. 6 Despite notice of the deficiencies in his complaints and two opportunities to amend, 7 || plaintiff has not stated a potentially cognizable claim, indicating that further leave to amend 8 | would be futile. See Plumeau v. School Dist. # 40, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of 9 || leave to amend appropriate where further amendment would be futile). 10 Il. Order and Recommendation 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants’ motion for the court to screen the second 12 || amended complaint (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED. It is RECOMMENDED that the second 13 || amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend and the case be closed. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 16 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 19 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 20 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) 21 22 || Dated: December 16, 2025 Zot ?l Wltirr □□□ A4 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28