Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dorava v. Gonzalez

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 16, 2015

EDWIN PAUL DORAVA, Plaintiff,
v.
A.M. GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ANDRÉ BIROTTE, Jr., District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

On October 25, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, plaintiff, Edwin Paul Dorava ("plaintiff"), who is in custody and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis , filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint ("Original Complaint") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), suing A.M. Gonzalez and other unspecified and unnamed officials connected with the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison ("CVSP") where plaintiff is currently housed. The case was subsequently transferred to the Central District of California and assigned to this Court for adjudication.

On January 10, 2014, the assigned United States Magistrate Judge ("Magistrate Judge") screened and dismissed the Original Complaint with leave to amend because the Original Complaint, among other things, violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 8") and failed to state a viable Section 1983 claim against defendant Gonzalez - the only named defendant - or any of the unnamed CVSP defendants.

On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Topic Case Filing" with attached exhibits which the Magistrate Judge liberally construed as plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint appeared to assert multiple civil rights claims against (1) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard; (2) CDCR Director Michael Stainer; (3) CVSP Warden A.M. Gonzalez; (4) CVSP Dentist E. Mokntari; (5) CVSP Dental Assistant P. Ward; (6) CVSP Appeals Coordinator F.N. Guzman; (7) CVSP Health Records II Supervisor S. Gruovich; (8) CVSP Sergeant (D-Yard) P. Hernandez; and ten unnamed defendants who were identified only as "John or Jane Doe 1-10" ("Doe Defendants"). The First Amended Complaint sought only injunctive relief, but did not specify whether the foregoing defendants were sued in their individual and/or official capacities. On April 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened and dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend because, like its predecessor, the First Amended Complaint violated Rule 8 and failed to state a viable Section 1983 claim.

On August 4, 2014, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Amended Case Filing" with attached exhibits, which the Magistrate Judge liberally construed as plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint appeared to assert multiple civil rights claims against all of the CDCR/CVSP officials and Doe Defendants sued in the First Amended Complaint, plus two additional defendants - CVSP Custody Sergeant (D-Yard) L. Cormell and CVSP Lieutenant (D-Yard) J.J. Hernandez. Plaintiff sought only injunctive relief and did not specify whether the defendants were sued in their individual and/or official capacities. On August 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend essentially because (1) it was not signed by plaintiff or an attorney who represented plaintiff as required by Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 11"); and (2) plaintiff again failed to state a viable Section 1983 claim.

On October 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Amended Case Filing" with attached exhibits, which the Court liberally construes as plaintiff's operative Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint appears to assert multiple civil rights claims against all of the same defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint (collectively "defendants"). The Third Amended Complaint, which is unsigned, asserts that "[a]ll of the named defendants acted in their official capacity [sic], " but does not specify the type of relief being sought.

Based upon the record and the applicable law, and as further discussed below, this Court now dismisses the Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend, dismisses this action without prejudice, and directs that judgment be entered accordingly because, even though plaintiff has been afforded three opportunities to amend the Original Complaint, he still has been unable to state a viable claim and it appears that any further amendment would be futile.[1]

II. THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT[2]

Very liberally construed, the Third Amended Complaint alleges the following:

On June 4, 2014, defendants Cormell and J.J. Hernandez wrote a false 115 Rule Violation Report ("RVR") about plaintiff. Defendant J.J. Hernandez became the hearing officer for the RVR, "dening [sic] [plaintiff] a fair hearing and hurting [plaintiff's] interest in liberty." (TAC ¶ 1).

At the same time, defendants Cormell and J.J. Hernandez took plaintiff's personal property ( i.e. , "one lake wood fan") and refused to provide plaintiff with a "search [slip]" for the property. (TAC ¶ 2).

On June 5, 2014, defendant J.J. Hernandez threatened to put plaintiff in "the Hole" while "C.O. Tom" was serving plaintiff with the RVR. (TAC ¶ 3). Defendant J.J. Hernandez stated that "he did not need any reason to do [so] other then [sic] he can." (TAC ¶ 3). Defendant J.J. Hernandez also stated that he would throw out all of plaintiff's personal property. (TAC ¶ 4). The next weekend plaintiff mailed 13 pounds of personal property to his sister at a cost of $32.50. (TAC ¶ 4).

On June 25, 2014, "I.S.U." searched plaintiff's locker in D-10 Dorm 2 (the only locker searched in Dorm 2) and took plaintiff's photo album without providing a search slip. (TAC ¶ 5).

On June 30, 2014, plaintiff "attempted to comply with the instructions from Appeals Coordinator E. Moser [not a defendant] on required 602 process." (TAC ¶ 7).

On June 30, 2014, defendant J.J. Hernandez "tore to shreads [sic] the required GA-22, "[3] told plaintiff "that was [plaintiff's] answer, " and "stated that he and [defendant] Cormell would come to [plaintiff's] bunk and take more personal property." (TAC ¶ 8). The actions of defendant J.J. Hernandez were "a clear violation of [plaintiff's] right to the appeals process and had a clear ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.