Opinion
22-CV0449LHSG
07-07-2023
RODNEY VICTOR COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. T. ALLEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison - Los Angeles, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 15) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Procedural History
The initial complaint named as defendants Warden Allen, Lt. Celaya, Chief Deputy Warden Binkele, Office of Appeals Chief M. Voong, appeals examiner captain H. Liu, CCII, and V. Lomeli, but did not specify where these correctional officials worked. The initial complaint alleged that while Plaintiff was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), he was found guilty of 10 RVRs (disciplinary violations) with no proof of guilt; that the guilty findings failed to recognize his mental health condition resulting from paruresis (shy bladder syndrome); and that the guilty findings resulted in a loss of various privileges, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Coleman case, the Eighth Amendment, and state regulations.
The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because inter alia (1) it was vague and conclusory in that it failed to explain how the guilty findings violated any of the cited federal or state laws and regulations; (2) the complaint did not link any defendant directly to any alleged constitutional violation; (3) it was unclear if Plaintiff was denied any services because of his alleged disability; (4) to the extent that Plaintiff named Warden Allen and Chief Deputy Warden Binkele as defendants because they are supervisors, there is no supervisory liability under Section 1983; and (5) to the extent that Plaintiff has named as defendants individuals who reviewed or denied his grievances, generally speaking, there is no liability under Section 1983 for a correctional official's participation in the prison grievance process. The Court instructed Plaintiff that in preparing his amended complaint, he should identify what constitutional or federal right was violated, and identify by name the individual that violated that right; and that he should not refer to the defendants as a group, i.e. “Defendants.”
C. Amended Complaint
The amended complaint appears to name the same defendants as were named in the initial complaint: Warden T. Allen, Lt. Celaya, Chief Deputy Warden Binkele, M. Voong, H. Liu, and CCII V. Lomeli. Plaintiff's handwriting is difficult to decipher, but what can be deciphered is even more conclusory and vague than the initial complaint. The amended complaint states as follows:
Plaintiff was denied & subjected to loss of liberty privileges rights by the named defendants. When he was found guilty of not being able to provide urine for a [ . . .] urine sample [ . . .] drugs & alcohol. Plaintiff believes his state rights were violated California Constitution Article I, Section 15, Due Process Article I, Section 17, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, U.S. Constitution [ . . .] Due Process 8th Cruel & Unusual Punishment, 14th Equal Protection, 4th Amendment Seizure. Plaintiff believes 1983 is appropriate. These defendants acted under color of state statute and regulations [ . . .] act was a vaiolation [ . . .] denies [. . .] ¶ 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Warden T. Allen, Lt. Celaya, C.D.W. Binkele, Captain H. Liu, M. Voong, and CCII V. Lomeli by signature played a role in all the constitution, state & federal cited.Dkt. No. 15 at 1.
The amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as the initial complaint. The amended complaint is again vague and conclusory. The amended complaint again fails to explain how the guilty finding(s) violated the cited federal and state constitutional provisions. The amended complaint again fails to link any defendant directly to any alleged constitutional violation, and again does not explain what each individual defendant did, outside of signing an RVR, that caused the alleged constitutional violation. And, as explained previously, a prison official's participation in the grievance process, i.e., by signing an RVR, generally does not constitute significant participation in an alleged constitutional violation sufficient to give rise to personal liability under Section 1983.
The amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief because it offers only conclusory statements and references constitutional provisions, without providing factual enhancement sufficient to give fair notice of his legal claims and the facts upon which they are based. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without leave to amend because the amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Further leave to amend will not be granted because the Court has explained to Plaintiff the specific deficiencies in his pleadings and Plaintiff has been unable to correct them. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court may, in its discretion, deny leave to amend where there have been repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this action without leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.