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.

Shehee v. Perez

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 27, 2018

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, Plaintiff,
v.
PEREZ, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF NOS. 31, 38) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         On December 4, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for excessive force in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Faith Perez for the purported two incidents which occurred in November 2014 and the one incident on February 8, 2015, and a cognizable claim for failure to protect in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Lain, but failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 31.) Following several extensions of time, on February 23, 2018, Plaintiff requested that the Court proceed on the claims against Defendants Perez and Lain. (ECF No. 38.)

         II. Screening Requirement and Standard

         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).

         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 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         III. Allegations in Complaint

         Plaintiff is currently housed at Fresno County Jail. The incidents at issue in this litigation occurred while Plaintiff was housed in Coalinga State Hospital, when he was civilly committed. Plaintiff names the following defendants: Faith Perez, Psychiatric Technician; Jack Carter, Chief of Police, Coalinga, Pamela Ahlin, Director of Department of State Hospitals; Audrey King, Executive Director of State Hospitals. In this amended complaint, Plaintiff also adds numerous other defendants: Jirri Lain, [1] Psych Technician, S. Perryman, B. Price, June (unknown last name), K. Earl, J. Lain, Murphy (unknown last name), K. Reed, R. Gonzalez, Newmente, D. Landrum, R. Smith, Amber, Romero, Carlos, Veronica, J. Taylor, and possibly other defendants.[2] All defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff's allegations are as follows:

         As best the Court can decipher from the mostly illegible writing, Plaintiff alleges a sexual environment at the State Hospitals where there were patient-staff sex rings. Plaintiff alleges these sex rings existed from 2010 to about December 2015. He was concerned and all staff and many patients were involved and was known and condoned or should have been known and was condoned by executives, administrators and staff.

         Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually abused by Defendant Perez. As best the Court can determine from reviewing the writing, Plaintiff had a conversation with Defendant Perez in 2014 and she said she likes chocolate. They went down the hall and no other staff or nurses looked up from their computers. Defendant Perez walked into Plaintiff's room and pulled the door closed. She performed a sex act on him and they had sex and she left the room. In what appears to be a separate incident, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Perez performed a sex act on him in November 10 or 11, 2014 and they had intercourse. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Perez sexually assaulted him again on February 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges she was custody staff and he was in fear of her. As best the Court can determine, Plaintiff complains of three incidences of sexual abuse by Defendant Perez and that he engaged in these sex acts because he was afraid, and she threatened to write bad and false things in his Health Medical Records, which could affect his review of his civil commitment.

         On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff “enlightened” Defendant Jirri Lain “of the sexual abuse . . . from defendant Faith Perez.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Perez saw Plaintiff with Defendant Lain, and Defendant Perez cursed at him and threatened to have more sex with Plaintiff. As best the Court can determine, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Perez continued to threaten him. Defendant Perez tried to get close to another patient from 11/13/14 throughout December 2014, causing Plaintiff mental and emotional distress. On 2/8/15, Defendant Perez forced him to have sex with her on Unit 1, which Plaintiff did out of fear of retaliation because she said that she, as a mandated medical reporter, would write bad or false things in his mental health records. Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to have sex with Defendant Perez 3 times, against his will out of fear of retaliation and which caused him emotional pain and suffering.

         Plaintiff alleges from 2013 to February 8, 2015, the administrators denied plaintiff a basic review of Patient's rights and bedroom decoration and walks throughout the hospital. Plaintiff could not communicate with administrators.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant J. Carter, as the Chief of the State Hospitals, is responsible for the training and supervision of the employees and responsible for their conduct and for their unlawful sexual conduct with patients from October 2012 throughout 2013 and through February 8, 2015. Defendant J. Carter failed to protect Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ahlin, as the Executive Director from 2008-13, has a duty to protect him and is responsible for the health and safety of all patients, but failed to protect him. Defendant received information from Plaintiff about sex rings, and Defendant Audrey King from 2014-2015 knew of the sex rings. (ECF No. 30, p. 26-27 of 112.) As best the Court can decipher, Plaintiff alleges that all of the staff, administrators and executives knew of the sex rings and did nothing. The allegations are repetitive and confusing and difficult to read with the pencil used by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also attaches some 90 pages of mostly illegible handwritten documents.

         IV. Discussion

         A. Pleading Deficiencies

         1.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). As noted above, 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         Plaintiff's complaint is neither short nor plain. Plaintiff's complaint totals twenty-five pages of nearly illegible statements and over 90 pages of exhibits. In fact, the amended complaint is less clear than the original complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint does not clearly set forth the factual allegations underlying his claims; purported facts are interspersed with conclusory recitations of legal elements, which are repeated throughout the complaint. A short plain statement of the facts is just that, short and plain. In addition, Plaintiff need not allege in graphic detail each of the 3 sexual encounters with Defendant Perez. It is sufficient to state the date and that he was forced to engage in a sexual act without his consent. Plaintiff's complaint must be full and complete in and of itself, and the Court will not refer to other pleadings or exhibits to piece together potential claims.

         2. Federal Rule of ...


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.