United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 19)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Chauncey Hollis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 6,
2016, and the matter was transferred to this Court on
November 4, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 1, 6.) On June 9, 2017, the
Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and granted leave to
amend. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff's first amended
complaint, filed on July 10, 2017, is currently before the
Court for screening. (Doc. No. 19.)
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.
of Plaintiff's Allegations
is currently housed at California Men's Colony, East in
San Luis Obispo, California. The events in the complaint are
alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at North
Kern State Prison (“NKSP”), Ironwood State Prison
(“ISP”) and other facilities. Plaintiff names the
following defendants: (1) Kelly Santoro, NKSP Warden; (2) R.
Givens, NKSP counselor; (3) Officer Solario, NKSP; (4) ISP
Warden; (5) Nilos, ISP Counselor; (6) Captain Meyers,
Contract Beds Unit in Rancho Cordova, California; (7) Warden,
Contract Beds Unit; (8) Warden C. Keeton, La Palma
Correctional Center (LLPC) in Eloy, Arizona; (9) Counselor
Younger, LPCC; (10) Officer Jayne, LPCC; and (11) Officer
alleges as follows. On June 10, 2016, Plaintiff was sentenced
to 12 years. An abstract was forwarded to NKSP prior to
Plaintiff's transfer. Plaintiff contends that Defendant
Santoro implemented a deficient policy because all inmates
are put on lockdown 23/7 without violating any prison rules
and are denied access to phones in reception centers.
August 9, 2016, Plaintiff entered NKSP, and filed a request
for a legal call to hire a lawyer. Plaintiff did not receive
a response. Plaintiff pleaded with Defendant Solario, who
signed the call request. Defendant Solario said there were no
August 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 602 complaint, but did not
receive a response. Plaintiff also filed an affidavit, which
gave the Warden and Counselor Givens notice of the urgency of
a legal call. After no response to the request, 602 or
affidavit, on September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
“Notice of Default/Option to Cure, ” and sent
copies to the Warden and Counselor Givens. Plaintiff alleges
that this put Warden Santoro and Counselor Givens on a third
notice that the 602 had been filed, but was not logged, and
that the request for a legal call was being ignored.
August 22, 2016, Plaintiff sent a habeas corpus to the court.
On August 28, 2016, Plaintiff sent an amended habeas corpus,
but the amended copy never made it or was never logged in the
around September 4, 2016, a Crip Gang Member, William Green,
came to Plaintiff's cell and said, “The people say
you are filing too many complaints.” Plaintiff asked
what people, and Inmate Green stated, “Solario.”
Later that day, Plaintiff told Defendant Solario that he
should not tell inmates Plaintiff's business because
Plaintiff could be stabbed up. Defendant Solario allegedly
stated, “Don't worry these dudes are pussy but
I'm sending you over where it's all real
gangsters.” (Doc. No. 19 at p. 5.) That night, after
dinner, Plaintiff was moved to Building 6B with Northern
Familia Mexicans. When Plaintiff moved to Building 6,
Defendant Solario also started working Building 6 in the gun
tower, smiling at Plaintiff with the gun pointed at him as he
walked by to get his food. Plaintiff alleges that on three
consecutive weekends he was denied rec yard by Defendant
September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint regarding
mail tampering. Plaintiff then filed a request and sent the
request to the next level with no response.
October 20, 2016, Defendant Givens came to see Plaintiff for
Committee. Defendant Givens told Plaintiff to fill out forms.
Before Plaintiff was finished, Defendant Givens handed
Plaintiff a paper to sign, stating “You are doing to
[sic] much I'm getting you out of here.”
Givens snatched the papers away and said “Just sign it
you are going far away.” (Id.) Plaintiff read
over the paperwork and told Defendant Givens that his points
were incorrect. Plaintiff showed Defendant Givens that 2
points should be taken off due to a minute order. Plaintiff
also showed Defendant Givens the dismissed disciplinary
report. Defendant Givens looked at the papers and said,
“None of this is good, ” and “Put it on a
602 like everything else.” (Id.) Plaintiff
filed a 602 that night with supporting documents. The 602 was
rejected with instructions to file a Form 22. Plaintiff filed
a Form 22, but received no response. Plaintiff filed a second
602 with an attached Form 22. The 602 was rejected a second
time with directions to file a Form 22.
November 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed an affidavit about the
appeals coordinator being in collusion and committing
reprisals by intentional rejecting Plaintiff's complaints
to stagnate the exhaustion of remedies. Plaintiff alleges
that none of the abovementioned Form 22s or 602s were
accepted or answered.
December 8, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to ISP. On
December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Form 22 about the same
issues from NKSP regarding the miscalculation of points.
Plaintiff was instructed to file a 602. On December 30, ...