United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT SCREENING
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF No. 23, 26)
Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pablo Holguin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated
this action on March 14, 2016. Plaintiff's first amended
complaint, filed on May 1, 2017, is currently before the
Court for screening. (ECF No. 23). Also pending is
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the First
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 26.)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678,
129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss,
572 F.3d at 969.
Summary of Plaintiff's
is currently housed at the Correctional Training Facility, in
Solodad. The events in the complaint are alleged to have
occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Avenal State Prison.
Plaintiff names R.Wicks, Correctional Lieutenant, as the sole
alleges: Plaintiff was deprived of his right to Due Process
under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges Defendant
Wicks is sued in his official and individual capacities in
that Plaintiff was found guilty of a Rule Violation. On
December 5, 2013, Correctional Officer Qualls discovered what
he believed to be a controlled substance underneath a stamp
attached to an envelope addressed to Plaintiff. The envelope
was not given to Plaintiff and Plaintiff never possessed the
envelope or stamp. Plaintiff alleges he did not have prior
knowledge of the substance.
was charged in a Rule Violation Report (“RVR”)
with introduction of a controlled substance. On March 17,
2014, Defendant R. Wicks conducted a hearing. Defendant Wicks
is a high ranking official and experienced in the duties as a
Senior Hearing Officer (“SHO”). The SHO must have
determined that Plaintiff actually possessed the
letter/substance or the Plaintiff had prior knowledge that
contraband was hidden under the stamp. Plaintiff alleges that
Wicks knew of the deficient RVR before the hearing because
(1) the RVR charged offense lacked proper authority, (2) the
RVR state of incompleteness that Plaintiff lacked possession
or evidence of prior knowledge. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Wicks' premediated oversight, combined with his
selective course of actions(s) to ignore the perquisites.
Plaintiff alleges that Wicks' conduct violated CDCR
policy and regulations and he did not report misconduct of
Qualls for false reporting. Defendant Wicks' further
participated in the false RVR when he adjudged the deficient
was found guilty and assessed 180 days of behavioral credit
forfeiture, 60 days loss of privileges, 5 days confinement to
quarters, order two random drug tests per month for 12
months, 180 days loss of contact visits, referral to
substance abuse program. Plaintiff was also assessed a high
custody level and placed in administrative segregation.
Plaintiff was totally exonerated of the RVR via a state
petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this action, Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages.
5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Supplement the
First Amended Complaint which seeks to allege special
damages. Plaintiff realleges a summary of the facts from his
first amended complaint against Wicks. The summary of facts
clarify that Plaintiff is alleging that Wicks knew the RVR
was deficient in that the RVR failed to contain the elements
that Plaintiff was (a) in possession and/or (b) constructive
possession of the substance and knew of the substance.
Plaintiff alleges that Wicks was deliberately indifferent to
the effect of the false RVR, in that there is the potential
of several years of delay for “suitability
considerations” for parole. The false criminal
complaint (referral to the District Attorney's office)
for prosecution was violation of cruel and unusual punishment
and deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's liberty
Motion to Supplement
“may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a
supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the
pleading to be supplemented.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d).
Although leave to permit supplemental pleading is generally
favored, the supplemental pleading cannot be used to
introduce a “separate, distinct and new cause of
action.” Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v.
Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); see also San Luis
& Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. U.S. Dept. of
Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 497 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (setting
forth nine factors for determining whether to permit
supplemental pleadings, including the relatedness of the
original and supplemental complaints). ...