United States District Court, E.D. California
KASEY F. HOFFMANN, Plaintiff,
WARDEN SHERMAN, et al. Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 13) FOURTEEN-DAY
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
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),
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).
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.
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.
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).
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 ...