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.

Hunter v. White

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 14, 2016

DEMONDZA HUNTER, Plaintiff,
v.
W. WHITE, et al, Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

          RALPH R. BEISTLINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         At Docket 21 Plaintiff Demondza Douglas Hunter, a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his Second Amended Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against numerous officials employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).[1] The Court dismissed Hunter’s Complaint and First Amended Complaints with leave to amend.[2] Hunter’s claims arose while he was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Center, Corcoran (“CSATF”). Hunter is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison-Sacramento “(CSP-Sac”).[3]

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.[4] The Court set forth the standards applicable to screening in its initial Dismissal Order; therefore, the Court does not repeat them herein.

         II.GRAVAMEN OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Hunter alleges two causes of action. His first cause of action is brought against Defendants White, Plough, Watkins, Vechicco, Rodriquez, Martinez, Lamb, and Does 1 - 10. In this Cause of action Hunter alleges that these Defendants in various ways retaliated against him for reporting staff corruption by confiscating and destroying personal property, interfered with his secondary medical needs, and disclosed to prison population that Hunter was a snitch.

         In his second cause of action Hunter alleges that Ogbuehi, his primary care provider, failed to refer Hunter to a specialist for treatment and improperly prescribed pain medications that caused Hunter to suffer internal bleeding.

         As and for relief Hunter seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Hunter’s Second Amended Complaint suffers from several deficiencies. Initially the Court notes that despite the Court’s explicit instructions in dismissing both the Complaint and the First Amended Complaint, Hunter has not attached to his Second Amended Complaint copies of the documents evidencing that he has properly exhausted his administrative remedies.[5] The Court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with a Court order.[6]

         The Court further notes that to a significant extent Hunter continues to assert extraneous facts that the Court has previously determined were insufficient to warrant the granting of relief by this Court. In addition, to the extent that Hunter seeks injunctive relief, the fact that Hunter is no longer housed at CSATF renders that claim moot. Thus, to the extent Hunter seeks injunctive relief it fails to state a claim upon which the Court may grant relief.[7]

         First Claim for Relief

         As the Court noted in its original dismissal order, Defendants’ acts in labeling Hunter a “snitch” might constitute a cognizable violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.[8]Despite the Court’s explicit instructions that he need do so, Hunter has not alleged that he has been threatened with any violence or other adverse act as a result of the “snitch” labeling. In the absence of threats or some other adverse effect, Hunter has not suffered any cognizable injury. Hunter still fails to allege that he suffered any harm or threatened harm as a result. Consequently, Hunter continues to fail to allege a viable cause of action based upon the alleged labeling as a “snitch.” Hunter having failed to do so despite two opportunities, to the extent that Hunter’s claim is based upon an alleged labeling as a “snitch, ” it will be dismissed without leave to amend.

         To the extent that the First Claim for Relief is based upon the destruction of his personal property and “secondary medical needs” the Court previously dismissed it without leave to amend. ...


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.