United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Gregory Franklin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section
1983”) alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. For the reasons discussed below,
the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.
IN THE COMPLAINT
19, 2019, Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison -
Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), constructively
filed the Complaint against defendants (1)
Lieutenant R. Franklin, (2) Lieutenant A.H. Martinez, (3)
Correctional Officer J. Hernandez, (4) Correctional Officer
E. Gollette, (5) Correctional Counselor II J. Tingely, (6)
Correctional Officer E. Delgadillo, (7) Captain S. Rivera,
(8) Chief Deputy Warden R. Johnson, (9) Associate Warden C.
Wood, (10) Sergeant R. Aguirre, (11) Correctional Officer
Drayton, (12) Correctional Officer J. Makarade, (13)
Correctional Officer J. Resendiz, (14) Lieutenant I. Mijares,
(15) Correctional Counselor S. Nave, (16) Correctional
Officer Rios, (17) Sergeant Moses, (18) F. Villalobos, (19)
Warden M. Stratman, (20) Correctional Officer K. Penate, (21)
Correctional Officer G. Rodriguez, (22) Chief Appeal Officer
T. Ramos, and (23) Correctional Officer D. Moore
(“Defendants”) in their individual and official
capacities. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. Plaintiff
alleges each Defendant violated his First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Complaint sets forth the following allegations:
February 13, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at CSP-LAC after being
transferred from Calpatria State Prison. Id. at
13-14. While at Calpatria State Prison, Plaintiff had filed a
civil rights lawsuit in 2007 against thirteen correctional
officers at Calpatria State Prison, a second civil rights
lawsuit in June 2008 against eight correctional officers at
Calpatria State Prison, and a third civil rights lawsuit in
2011 against seven correctional officers at Calpatria State
Prison. Id. at 12-13.
point after his transfer to CSP-LAC, defendants Rodriguez and
Moses told Plaintiff they were placing another inmate in
Plaintiff's cell. Id. at 15. Defendant Rodriguez
“said he was aware of Plaintiff suing officers.”
Id. at 16. Plaintiff stated he “needed to see
the prisoner before he [would] accept him as a
cellmate.” Id. at 15. Before Plaintiff met the
proposed cellmate, however, Plaintiff was placed in
administrative segregation for “refusing a
cellie.” Id. Defendant Franklin “said he
provided Plaintiff a disciplinary hearing and he found
Plaintiff guilty, ” but no disciplinary hearing
occurred. Id. at 15-16. As a result, Plaintiff spent
60 days confined to his cell with “no outdoor or inside
recreation.” Id. at 16.
21, 2015, defendants Rodriguez and Moses again told Plaintiff
an inmate had been assigned to his cell. Id. at 17.
Plaintiff told them “he don't want no cellie that
is violent and psychotic.” Id. Plaintiff was
given a rule violation for “refusing a cellie.”
Id. Defendant Martinez, the hearing officer for
Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, refused to call
Plaintiff's requested witnesses and found Plaintiff
guilty of the rule violation. Id. As a result,
Plaintiff was confined to his cell for 90 consecutive days
immediately following the previous 60 days for a total of
five months. Id. at 17-18.
21, 2015, defendant Moore packed Plaintiff's property and
placed it in Release and Receiving for Plaintiff to receive
when he was released from administrative segregation.
Id. at 34. On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff was
released from administrative segregation and received his
property. Id. His legal work, however, was missing
and several inmates told Plaintiff they saw a bundle of legal
work on the dayroom floor after Plaintiff's property was
taken to Release and Receiving. Id.
September 13, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on
“C-status” (i.e., “privilege group
C”) for the two rule violations for refusing “a
cellie.” Id. at 18. On November 1, 2015,
Plaintiff sent a request to defendants Nave and Tingely,
correctional counselors, to remove Plaintiff from C-status.
Id. at 19. Both defendants Nave and Tingely
“made comments about Plaintiff['s] pending
lawsuits, ” denied him a hearing regarding his removal
from C-status, and refused to take Plaintiff off C-status.
October 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against five
CSP-LAC employees, including defendant Martinez. Id.
at 20. On October 19, 2017, defendant Martinez supervised
cell searches in the building where Plaintiff was housed.
Id. at 20. After the search, Plaintiff's food
items were missing. Id. The cell search receipt
stated defendant Gollette and Hernandez had conducted the
search. Id. at 20-21. Defendant Gollette “had
previously made comments about Plaintiff bringing
lawsuits.” Id. at 21.
annual classification hearings on October 19, 2016 and
October 10, 2017, Plaintiff's requests to be transferred
to a lower security prison, have “single cell
status”, and to enter “rehabilitative/work
programs” were denied. Id. at 22. Counselor
Tingely, who had previously told Plaintiff “it
disturb[s] him Plaintiff ha[s] brought lawsuit's [sic]
against his co-horts, ” was the chairperson for the
annual classification on October 19, 2016, and defendant
Rivera was the chairperson on October 10, 2017. Id.
days after Plaintiff's annual
classification and one day after Plaintiff wrote a
grievance challenging the denial of his request for single
cell status, defendant Penata wrote Plaintiff a rule
violation for refusing “a cellie.” Id.
at 23. Defendant Villalobos found Plaintiff guilty of the
rule violation, which resulted in “90 days loss of
telephone, credits, dayroom, and clean time.”
unspecified date, Plaintiff gave defendant Delgadillo a
complaint regarding loss of personal property to mail to the
Government Claim Board, but the complaint never reached the
Government Claim Board and it was not logged into the
mailroom. Id. at 24-25. On August 14, 2017 and