United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER SERVING COGNIZABLE CLAIM
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Men's Colony, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about his conditions of confinement during the period of his incarceration as a pretrial detainee at the Alameda County Jail in Santa Rita (SRCJ). On January 26, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims in the first amended complaint. However, because summary judgment on the procedural due process claim was granted on the ground that Plaintiff failed to name the proper defendants, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (2AC) to allow him to name the proper defendants.
On March 4, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's 2AC with leave to amend. The Court noted that, although Plaintiff named individuals as Defendants, he did not allege how they violated his procedural due process rights.
On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, (3AC), which the Court now reviews.
I. 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. 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. Id . § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant's actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dept. Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. II. Plaintiff's Allegations
In his 3AC, Plaintiff names as Defendants SRCJ Watch Commander Gordon Bowan and SRCJ Deputies Bervin Hankins, Christopher Feeny, Rogelio Matedne, Mark Schlegal, Terry Carson, Aaron Garth, Robert Bixby, Robert Griffith and Michael Molly. Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants, except Bowan, were on the SRCJ Classification Committee and were responsible for the decision to place him in administrative segregation without due process of law, in that he did not receive notice of the reason Defendants determined to place him in administrative segregation, he did not have a hearing on the matter and he did not have an opportunity to present his views. As a result, for the entire 900 days Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at SRCJ, he remained in isolation and was denied access to inmate programs and group religious services, he ate meals by himself in his cell, and had little access to the outdoor yard.
Liberally construed, the 3AC appears to state a cognizable procedural due process claim against Deputies Hankins, Feeny, Matedne, Schlegal, Carson, Garth, Bixby, Griffith and Molly. However, even liberally construed, the 3AC does not state a cognizable claim against Watch Commander Bowan because the allegations state he was not on the Classification Committee nor do they indicate how he was responsible for the decision to place Plaintiff in administrative segregation. Therefore, the claim against Watch Commander Bowan is dismissed. Dismissal is with prejudice because Plaintiff had two opportunities to state a cognizable claim against Bowan and he has failed to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
1. The procedural due process claim against Watch Commander Bowan is ...