Washington v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2023
• Docket: 5:22-cv-02454
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY WASHINGTON, 11 Case No. 22-cv-02454 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN PART v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 13

14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & 15 REHABILITATION, et al.,

16 Defendants. 17

19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 20 1983, against an officer at the Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) where he was 21 formerly incarcerated, and against the California Department of Corrections and 22 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), the State of California, and the Correctional Peace Officers 23 Association union (“CPOA”). Dkt. No. 1. The matter was transferred to this court from 24 the Eastern District on April 21, 2022, Dkt. No. 5, and originally assigned to the Honorable 25 Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman, Dkt. No. 6. Judge Illman dismissed the complaint 26 with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 11. The matter was subsequently reassigned to the 27 Undersigned on November 3, 2022. Dkt. No. 19. The Court will now conduct an initial 1 review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Dkt. No. 17. 2 3 DISCUSSION 4 A. Standard of Review 5 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 6 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 7 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 8 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 9 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 10 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 11 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 13 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 14 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 15 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 17 Judge Illman found that the original complaint stated a cognizable failure-to-protect 18 claim against Defendant Sgt. Howard. Dkt. No. 11 at 3, citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 19 U.S. 825, 833 (1994); Cortez v. Skol, 776 F. 3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015); Hearns v. 20 Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff was granted leave to amend to 21 attempt to correct the deficiencies of a claim regarding verbal harassment and to provide 22 specific allegations to state a claim against the other named Defendants. Dkt. No. 11 at 3. 23 Plaintiff filed another complaint which was construed as an amended complaint. 24 Dkt. No. 17. However, this document is identical to the original complaint but missing the 25 original page 6. Compare Dkt. No. 17 with Dkt. No. 1. Therefore, Plaintiff has not 26 amended any of the deficiencies from the original complaint. 1 claim which was not previously addressed. Dkt. No. 17 at 5. Under this claim, Plaintiff 2 alleges Sgt. Howard “held an obvious personal animosity towards [him]” which was 3 “evidenced by his going to the Black inmates and saying untruthfully that [Plaintiff] was a 4 SNY and EOP inmate….” Id. 5 “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no 6 State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which 7 is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of 8 Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). A plaintiff alleging denial 9 of equal protection based on race or other suspect classification must plead intentional 10 unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of 11 discriminatory intent. Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 12 (9th Cir. 1998). To state a claim for relief, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant state 13 actor acted at least in part because of the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class. 14 Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 15 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 629 F.3d 16 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (claim that alleged harmful treatment but mentioned 17 nothing about disparate treatment was properly dismissed); Village of Willowbrook v. 18 Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564-65 (2000) (per curiam) (holding that “class of one” claim 19 requires only that action be irrational and arbitrary, rather than requiring discriminatory 20 intent). 21 Plaintiff’s allegations are simply insufficient to state an equal protection claim 22 because he fails to identify the protected class of which he is a member and how Defendant 23 discriminated against him because of his membership in that class. He must at least 24 describe similarly situated prisoners who received different treatment than Plaintiff such 25 that Defendant Howard’s actions towards him were irrational and arbitrary. Plaintiff shall 26 be given one final opportunity to amend this equal protection claim. 1 action shall proceed solely on the failure-to-protect claim against Sgt. Howard. All other 2 named Defendants shall be dismissed as Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to 3 state any claim against them. 4 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 7 1. The only cognizable claim is against Defendant Howard. Accordingly, all 8 other Defendants are DISMISSED from this action as there are no cognizable claims 9 against them. The Clerk shall terminate Defendants CDCR, State of California, and the 10 CCPOA from this action. 11 2. The amended complaint is DISMISSED IN PART with leave to amend. 12 Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an 13 amended complaint using the court’s form complaint to correct the deficiencies described 14 above solely with respect to the equal protection claim. The second amended complaint 15 must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 22-cv- 16 02454 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 17 Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. 18 Plaintiff is reminded that the second amended complaint supersedes the original and 19 amended complaints, and Plaintiff may not make references to either. Claims not included 20 in the second amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an 21 second amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 22 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 23 In the alternative, Plaintiff may file notice in the same time provided that he 24 wishes to proceed solely on the failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Howard and 25 strike all other claims from the amended complaint. 26 3. Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a second 1 on the failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Howard without further notice to 2 Plaintiff. All other claims shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a 3 claim. 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: _ February 27, 2023 Loonfhacnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11

13 14

© Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 25 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.22\02454 Washington dwlta-am.compl 26 27