United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
February 20, 2019, the court screened plaintiff's amended
complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The amended complaint was dismissed with
leave to file a second amended complaint. In the screening
order, plaintiff was informed as follows:
While it is not entirely clear, it appears that in
plaintiff's amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that
when he was a pretrial detainee in the Glenn County Jail, he
was disciplined in the form of loss of unidentified
“privileges” for arguing with an officer and for
slamming a phone during the same course of events. Plaintiff
does not identify the privileges lost, nor the process
afforded plaintiff, if any, before loss. Therefore, he has
not established any actionable injury.
Plaintiff is informed that pretrial detainees have due
process protection for conduct that amounts to punishment.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). But,
“[n]ot every disability imposed during pretrial
detention amounts to ‘punishment' in the
constitutional sense. Id. at 537. “[I]f a
particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is
reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it
does not, without more, amount to
‘punishment.'” Id. at 539.
Petitioner suggests his right to not be subjected to double
jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment has been violated.
However, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
applies only to criminal proceedings. Breed v.
Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975).
filed his second amended complaint on May 13, 2019 and that
pleading is now before the court for screening. It appears
plaintiff was disciplined in the form of loss of family
visits and access to the prison commissary for periods of 10
and 15 days. The events resulting in discipline both occurred
on July 14, 2017. Plaintiff asserts since the events
resulting in discipline were part of the same “course
of conduct, ” his being disciplined twice violates the
Due Process Clause. At a minimum, plaintiff argues, the
periods for loss of privileges should have run concurrently.
the court is required to screen complaints brought by
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or
portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations
as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94
(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
conduct alleged by plaintiff is simply not a violation of the
Due Process Clause. First, any harm suffered by plaintiff in
this instance is de minimis rendering the
protections of the Due Process Clause inapplicable. See
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 539 n. 21. Further, no
valid interpretation of the Due Process Clause includes a
requirement that multiple forms of discipline cannot be
imposed for multiple acts if they were part of the same
series of events or “course of conduct.”
Accordingly, the court will recommend that plaintiffs second
amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and that this case be
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
Plaintiffs second amended complaint be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
case be closed.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with
the court. The document should be captioned “Objections
to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time ...