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.

Haynie v. Voong

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 21, 2017

DONELL THOMAS HAYNIE, Plaintiff,
v.
M. VOONG, et al., Defendants.

          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

         I. Background

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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.

         II. Failure to State a Claim

         A. Screening Requirement

         The 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).

         A 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).

         Prisoners 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.

         B. Plaintiff's Complaint

         Plaintiff 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 present.

         On 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         C. ...


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.