Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Hollis v. Santoro

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 20, 2018

KELLY SANTORO, et al., Defendants.




         Plaintiff 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.)

         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).

         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.

         Summary of Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff 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 Hampton, LPCC.

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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 phones.

         On 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.

         On 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 outgoing mail.

         On or 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 Solario.

         On 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.

         On 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.” (Id.)

         Defendant 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.

         On 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.

         On 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, ...

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.