Tamrat v. Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility Administration

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HERMAN TAMRAT, Case No. 21-cv-00127-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND

10 SONOMA COUNTY MAIN ADULT DETENTION FACILITY 11 ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 19 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 21 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 23 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 24 Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 26 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 27 necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 1 (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 2 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 3 to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 4 elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 5 raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 6 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 7 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 8 Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 9 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 10 allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 11 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 14 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 15 violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 16 color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 17 LEGAL CLAIMS 18 Plaintiff alleges that his due process rights were violated when he was placed in 19 disciplinary isolation at the county jail.1 20 A court presented with a procedural due process claim by a pretrial detainee 21 should first ask if the alleged deprivation amounts to punishment and therefore implicates 22 the Due Process Clause itself; if so, the court then must determine what process is due. 23 See, e.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537-38 (1979) (discussing tests traditionally 24 applied to determine whether governmental acts are punitive in nature). Disciplinary 25 segregation as punishment for violation of jail rules and regulations, for example, cannot 26 be imposed without due process, i.e., without complying with the procedural requirements 27 1 of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 523-26 2 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 If the alleged deprivation does not amount to punishment, a pretrial detainee's due 4 process claim is not analyzed under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 474 (1995), which 5 applies to convicted prisoners, but rather under the law as it was before Sandin. See 6 Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1041 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002). The proper test to 7 determine whether detainees have a liberty interest is that set out in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 8 U.S. 460, 472 (1983), and Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 9 461 (1989). Under those cases, a state statute or regulation creates a procedurally 10 protected liberty interest if it sets forth "'substantive predicates' to govern official decision 11 making" and also contains "explicitly mandatory language," i.e., a specific directive to the 12 decisionmaker that mandates a particular outcome if the substantive predicates have 13 been met. Thompson, 490 U.S. at 462-63 (quoting Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 472). 14 If the alleged deprivation does not amount to punishment and there is no state 15 statute or regulation from which the interest could arise, no procedural due process claim 16 is stated, and the claim should be dismissed. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223- 17 27 (1976) (interests protected by due process arise from Due Process Clause itself or 18 from laws of the states). 19 Plaintiff states that as a result of a Rules Violation he was placed in disciplinary 20 isolation for 15 days and lost privileges. Plaintiff states that he was denied an 21 investigatory employee, the right to cross-examine his accusers and prior written notice 22 of the charges. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to provide more 23 information. Plaintiff must present more information regarding why he was disciplined 24 and specially describe the punishment and resulting loss of privileges to demonstrate that 25 his due process rights were implicated. 26 CONCLUSION 27 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 1 2021, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 2 words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint 3 completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he 4 wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to file an 5 amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this action. 6 2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 7 court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 8 “Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 9 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 10 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: April 20, 2021 13 14 15 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27