United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN
CLAIMS (ECF NO. 11) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 11,
2018, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and
granted him leave to amend. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff's
first amended complaint, filed on May 21, 2018, is currently
before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 11.)
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. §§
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
Atlantic 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).
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.
is currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent
City, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to
have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State
Prison (“KVSP”). Plaintiff names Correctional
Officer S. Savoie, a KVSP employee, as the sole defendant in
Claim I, Plaintiff alleges that on April 7, 2016, Officer
Savoie verbally sexually harassed him during third watch
security bunk checks and mail pass out. Officer Savoie
reportedly tried to get Plaintiff to expose his genitals. On
the following day, April 8, 2016, Officer Savoie again tried
to get Plaintiff to expose himself to her during afternoon
showers, telling Plaintiff that she wanted to see his penis
and to take off his boxer shorts. Once Officer Savoie knew
that Plaintiff was not complying with her requests, she
started to foment false rumors to her co-worker, Officer I.
Ruiz, that Plaintiff exposed himself to her. Plaintiff
believes that Officer Savoie's request to expose himself
was for the purpose of blackmailing him and manipulating his
April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Officer
Savoie for sexual misconduct. At the 602 hearing, Officer
Savoie denied all allegations against her. Plaintiff then
made a formal request to the I.S.U. unit at KVSP to conduct a
polygraph examination of Officer Savoie. Plaintiff also
became aware that Lt. Moreno and Sgt. J. Melvin, who were
designated to investigate the complaint, did not report the
incident or information to the office of Inspector General or
the Office of Internal Affairs.
Claim II, Plaintiff alleges retaliation in violation of his
First Amendment rights. In relevant part, Plaintiff contends
that on April 27, 2016, Officer Savoie retaliated against him
for filing a 602 grievance against her for staff sexual
harassment. On that date, Officer Savoie allegedly filed a
false Rule Violation Report against Plaintiff for
overfamiliarity with staff. Plaintiff asserts that Officer
Savoie knew that if a Southern Hispanic inmate was falsely
accused of any sex crime or similar infraction, then that
inmate could be considered a “no good” Southern
Hispanic and could be targeted in any general population.
Plaintiff further asserts he was immediately transferred from
KVSP to High Desert State Prison because of Officer
Savoie's request for Plaintiff's and assertions that
Plaintiff's behavior and statements made her feel unsafe
with Plaintiff on the facility. Plaintiff was assaulted at
High Desert State Prison with deadly weapons. Plaintiff
alleges that Officer Savoie reportedly knew that the Rule
Violation Report would get Plaintiff targeted and assaulted.