United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE
TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF No. 10)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Donell Thomas Haynie (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
October 6, 2017, the Court dismissed the first amended
complaint with leave to amend within thirty days after
service. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff was expressly warned that if
he failed to file a second amended complaint in compliance
with the Court's order, this action would be dismissed
for failure to state a claim and failure to obey a court
order. (Id. at 8.) The deadline for Plaintiff to
file a second amended complaint has passed, and he has not
complied with the Court's order or otherwise communicated
with the Court.
Failure to State a Claim
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).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To 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.
is currently housed at the California Correctional
Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California, where the events
at issue occurred. Plaintiff names M. Voong, chief of
appeals, M. Hodges, Captain, and E. Garcia, Warden as
defendants in the case. Plaintiff alleges as follows. On
January 14, 2016, Plaintiff arrived at CCI. Plaintiff
attended a classification committee meeting on January 27,
2016. Plaintiff was told that he would be restricted to
non-contact visits with minors because of a juvenile hearing
in 2001, when Plaintiff was 15 years old. Plaintiff had never
been told that his visits were restricted and that prior to
arriving at CCI, he had been allowed to receive visitors with
minors present. He was also employed in 2012 and 2013 in the
visiting room at Kern Valley State Prison where minors were
February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed an appeal and requested
that his visitation be investigated as he was trying to
schedule a visit with his 13 year old daughter. On April 8,
2016, Plaintiff received a response from Chief Deputy Warden
E. Garcia. The appeal response granted Plaintiff's
request for a quick investigation and denied Plaintiff's
request for visitation with minors. Plaintiff received a
third level response on July 25, 2016 stating that Plaintiff
was “well aware” of the imposed visiting
restrictions and dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff alleges that
the dismissal failed to provide the information that
indicated Plaintiff was aware or waived his visitation
rights. The third level appeal failed to recognize that
Plaintiff had received visits with minors before and failed
to acknowledge that a hearing was not conducted to determine
if Plaintiff was a threat.
alleges Defendant Voong is legally responsible for overall
operation of inmate appeals. Defendant Hodges, as captain,
was assigned to review the appeal at the third level.
Defendant Garcia is the Warden and legally responsible for
the operation of CCI. Plaintiff has been unable to visit with
his family for contact visits. Contact visits are for 6 hours
while no-contact visits are only behind a glass for a maximum
of 1 hour. Plaintiff has stress, anxiety, high blood
pressure, for not having contact with his family. Plaintiff
sues each defendant in their official and individual
capacities and seeks $1 million from each defendant and
punitive damages of $2 million.