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.

Hoffmann v. Sherman

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 2, 2018

WARDEN SHERMAN, et al. Defendants.



         Plaintiff Kasey F. Hoffmann (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 29, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and granted him leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on March 8, 2018, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 13.)

         I. 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 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. 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Warden Sherman; (2) C.S.R. Representatives in Sacramento, California; and (3) BPH Board.

         In Claim 1, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

CSR Reps in 2003 placed a “administrative determination” (Hard 19) for an allegation of kidnapping. When the plaintiff was going to court for the alleged kidnapping it was dismissed by the court due to lack of evidence to obtain a conviction. CSR nor CDCR never notified the plaintiff that such an adverse and crippling determinant would be placed aginst the plaintiff. By no fault of the plaintiff and no factual evidence, or the standard of some evidence a completely capricious, and arbitrary administrative determinant was placed on the plaintiff with no fact. Under CCR title 15 33752(b)(29)(B) gives authority to the BPH to punish me, or use aginst me an allegation that was dismissed in a court of law; with no due process of law, or equal protection of inocent untill proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In January, February, March, October, August plaintiff tryed to exercise his First amendment right for grievence of a governmental redress. CDCR is a state entity, and denial of my grievence thats not in accordance with the California Penal Code that regulates a state prisons conduct; improper denials moot the first amendment right of a Governmental redress of a State Government, moreover under the PLRA, the failer to address my appeal within state law barrs me from the court.

(ECF No. 13 at pp. 3-4) (unedited text).

         In Claim 2, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

In accordance with the title 15 3320 I am to be notified whenever any adverse action is taken aginst me. When I address my due process being violated to C. Ramos SSA, due to the unconstitutional acts of the CSAR; in a personal letter to the Warden here, the CEO of this business, I informed him that my due process rights were being violated, in that C. Ramos effectively mooted my right for government grievence for redress that the C.S.R. and B.P.H. are breaking the Constitutional law of due process and equal protection of law. My equal protection being that a citizen of this country can not be punished, or adversly effected (administrative determination) for a alleged allegation of a crime; plaintiff had a kidnapping dismissed in 2003 for lack of evidence to prosecute. Only being charged with it and later the Court dismissed it. This charge is what the C.S.R. and B.P.H. have unlawfully played Judge, Jury, and executioner for a allegation? not a crime, act, or conviction by the plaintiff only a allegation of a alleged crime that was charged. I was never notified, or had an opertunity to explain why it was dismissed. Only adversley effected, being put around high level Criminals, like, murderers, rapeist, sex offenders. This has effected my over all well being, where I now suffer from P.T.S.D., social anxiety disorder, bi-polar and deep rooted trust issue that make it hard to function daily because of this violation of due process, equal protection and being punished for a crime that was completely dismissed by the court. No citizen would suffer the same.

(Id. at pp. 4-5) (unedited) As relief, Plaintiff seeks an injunction, along with compensatory and ...

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.