Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Downs v. Balls

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 22, 2015

LORI BALLS, et al., Defendants.


KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious, " that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless."); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] 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) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

Plaintiff claims that Lori Balls/Bolls, the designated appeals coordinator at High Desert State Prison refuses to process plaintiff's reasonable modification or accommodation request form, CDC 1824, which allegedly deprives plaintiff of his ability to obtain the assistance of counsel at his upcoming parole hearing. Further, plaintiff claims that defendant John Doe of the Board of Prison Terms refuses to provide plaintiff with Board of Parole hearing forms known as 1073 and 1074, [1] which are used by disabled inmates in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff contends that the failure to process his request for accommodation, as well as the failure to provide such parole forms, deprives him of a fair parole hearing in violation of the ADA, and denies him access to the court, in violation of the First Amendment, and violates his rights to due process and equal protection because his parole hearing will have passed before relief can be granted.

Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating that defendants violated plaintiff's equal protection rights. The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). A plaintiff may establish an equal protection claim by showing that the plaintiff was intentionally discriminated against on the basis of the plaintiff's membership in a protected class. See, e.g., Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). Under this theory of equal protection, the plaintiff must show that the defendants' actions were a result of the plaintiff's membership in a suspect class, such as race. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005).

If the action in question does not involve a suspect classification, a plaintiff may establish an equal protection claim by showing that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). To state an equal protection claim under this theory, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff is a member of an identifiable class; (2) the plaintiff was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated; and (3) there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. at 564. Plaintiff alleges no facts to support an equal protection claim.

With regard to plaintiff's access to the court claim, plaintiff fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim. Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that the actions of the prison official caused him an actual injury. See id. at 350-55. Only if an actual injury is alleged does a plaintiff state a claim for which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Jenkins v. McMickens, 618 F.Supp. 1472, 1474-75 (S.D. N.Y.1985) (complaint alleging certain documents pertaining to pending trial confiscated and not returned was too conclusory to support claim of denial of access to court). Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating an actual injury to his access to the court. The alleged failure of defendant Balls to process plaintiff's form CDCR 1824 did not result in a denial of access to the courts because plaintiff did not suffer any actual injury as a result of the alleged misconduct.

Moreover, plaintiff's claims are speculative and conclusory. Because plaintiff does not state that he has actually been denied parole eligibility because of his inability to have assistance at the hearing, or to have the forms sought, it is questionable whether he currently has standing to raise this claim. Standing is present only when (1) a plaintiff suffers an "actual or imminent" injury, (2) there is a "causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, " and (3) that injury will likely be "redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Standing will not be found where speculative inferences are necessary to establish either injury or the connection between the alleged injury and the act challenged. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 45 (1976); see also Johnson v. Weinberger, 851 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1988). Such is the case here.

Because the parole hearing has not yet taken place, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the Board failed to provide plaintiff the assistance he requires at the hearing. Plaintiff confirms that he is currently being treated at the CCCMS level of care in the CDCR mental health program, and such information should be available to the Board at the parole hearing. It is unclear from the complaint that the Board requires form CDCR 1824 in order for plaintiff to obtain assistance at the parole hearing, and the form CDCR 1824 does not reference its use at a parole hearing, as the BPH form 1073 does. Moreover, it is unclear from plaintiff's allegations or from BPH Forms 1073 and 1074 whether plaintiff's request for assistance at the parole hearing would be denied based on an alleged failure to complete such forms prior to the hearing.

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint so vague and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id . Because ...

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.