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.

Franklin v. R. Franklin

United States District Court, C.D. California

August 27, 2019

GREGORY FRANKLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
R. FRANKLIN, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff 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.

         II.

         ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

         On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison - Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), constructively filed[1] 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.

         The Complaint sets forth the following allegations:

         On 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.

         At some 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.

         On July 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.

         On July 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.

         On 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. Id.

         On 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.

         At his 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.

         Ten days after Plaintiff's annual classification[2] 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.” Id.

         On an 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 ...


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.