United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)
Saladdin Mousa (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner,
is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint,
filed on September 25, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On October 3, 2019,
the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and findings and
recommendations issued recommending dismissing the complaint
as duplicative of an action filed in the Northern District of
California. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed objections to the
findings and recommendations and based on those objections,
the Court vacated the October 3, 2019 findings and
recommendations. (ECF Nos. 9, 11.) The Court now screens
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 on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To
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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT
is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and is currently
housed at the California Correctional Institution at
Tehachapi. Generally, Plaintiff contends that the Trump
administration has failed to honor asylees and refugees who
are here in the United States by commanding Immigration and
Custom Enforcement (“ICE”) to place a hold
on them when they get into trouble. Plaintiff contends that
he came here legally and was granted asylum under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and the Trump
administration is trying to have him deported so that he can
be executed by the government that he sought to get away
from. Plaintiff states that most refugees, including himself,
no longer have citizenship in other countries since they were
driven out and their citizenship has been revoked. Plaintiff
states that it will be difficult to deport most refugees
because there is no country that will issue travel documents
to someone who is no longer a citizen.
alleges that even thinking about taking away the status of
someone who has been granted asylum is a violation of the
U.N. convention, a threat to their life, and a waste of
federal funds to house and feed them at federal detention
centers. Further, the United States will not be able to
deport them because no county will take them and ICE will
have to release them resulting in more people illegally in
the United States. Plaintiff contends that the Trump
Administration has failed to comply with the U.N. Convention
Against Torture since he is trying to take away the protected
status of individuals who have been granted status under the
convention and Plaintiff is one of them. Plaintiff contends
that ICE tortures the asylee or refugee because whenever an
asylee or refugee is jailed for any reason, ICE furiously
places a hold or detention on the individual no matter his
status or whether or not he is deportable.
states that the time that the between the immigration hold
and the individual seeing an immigration judge can take
months or even years. The individual has served his full term
of imprisonment since the ICE hold prevents him from getting
time reduced or early release or program release.
has had an ICE hold in place since July of 2019. Plaintiff
contends that California Penal Code Sections 1381 and 1389
require that he go to court while concurrently incarcerated
and the failure to comply should result in the dismissal of
the detainer. Plaintiff filed a grievance and CDCR officials
responded that the sections are not applicable to an ICE
detainer because it is a federal hold. Plaintiff responded
that he wanted them to investigate or to have him placed in
ICE custody or dismiss the hold. His grievance has been
pending since the end of July 2019. Plaintiff states that
depriving him of the protections of sections 1381 and 1389 is
causing his time in custody to be torture. Plaintiff states
that the CDCR knows that the ICE hold is obvious torture.
was told by Correctional Counselor Soares in a classification
hearing that, because of the ICE hold, he will not be
eligible for time reduction at thirty-three percent and his
time will remain at fifty percent unlike other inmates.
Plaintiff contends that he won his previous deportation cases
and in his last case was granted asylum. Plaintiff alleges
that the ICE hold violates double jeopardy.
revoked Plaintiff's citizenship in 2013. Plaintiff sent a
letter to the ICE office in Bakersfield explaining his
situation and asking for their cooperation. He asked that
they review his statement and his file and dismiss the ICE
hold they had placed on him. He has not received a response
since June 2019. Plaintiff brings this action against the
Trump Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
the CDCR, and the Warden of the Sierra Conservation Center
seeking for the Court to dismiss the ICE hold.
1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a
plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by
persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v.
Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long
v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.
2006); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. To state a claim
under section 1983, a plaintiff is required to show that (1)
each defendant acted under color of state law and (2) each
defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution
or federal law. Long, 442 F.3d at 1185.
is no respondeat superior liability under section
1983, and therefore, each defendant is only liable for his or
her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. To state
a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
brings this action against the Warden at the Sierra
Conservation Center; however, the complaint is devoid of any
factually allegations to demonstrate that the warden
participated in any conduct that would violate
Plaintiff's federal rights.
under Section 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for
actions of subordinates on any theory of vicarious
liability.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d
967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). “A supervisor may be liable only if (1)
he or she is personally involved in the constitutional
deprivation, or (2) there is ‘a sufficient causal
connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and
the constitutional violation.'” Crowley,
734 F.3d at 977 (citation and internal quotation marks
has failed to state a claim against the Warden at the Sierra
Plaintiff has Failed to State a Claim Against the State
Immunity Under the Eleventh Amendment
Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal
court against a state, its agencies, and state officials
acting in their official capacities[, ]” Aholelei
v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.
2007), “regardless of the relief sought, unless the
state unequivocally consents to a waiver of its immunity,
” Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Washington,
176 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Seminole
Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996).
suit against state officials that is in fact a suit against a
State is barred regardless of whether it seeks damages or
injunctive relief.” Pennhurst State School &
Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102 (1984). “The
general rule is that a suit is against the sovereign if
‘the judgment sought would expend itself on the public
treasury or domain, or interfere with the public
administration,' or if the effect of the judgment would
be ‘to restrain the Government from acting, or to
compel it to act.' ” Pennhurst State School
Hosp., 465 U.S. at 102 n.11 (quoting Dugan v.
Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 (1963)). Eleventh Amendment
immunity has not been abrogated with respect to claims
brought under section 1983. Quern v. Jordan, 440
U.S. 332, 341-42 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S.
department of the State of California, CDCR is entitled to
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, and Plaintiff cannot
bring this action against the CDCR. Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim against the State defendants. However, at this
time, the Court cannot find that there are no facts that
could be alleged that would enable Plaintiff to state a claim
in this action. Therefore, the Court provides Plaintiff with
the following legal standards that appear to apply to his
Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment
alleges that he filed an inmate appeal regarding his demands
that he be taken to court pursuant to section 1381 and 1389
of the California Penal Code and he received a response that
these sections do not apply to ICE detainers. He requested
that CDCR investigate for him and help him to either be
placed into ICE custody or dismiss the hold. Additionally,
Plaintiff states that he has been informed that due to the
ICE hold he is not entitled to time reduction credits at 33
percent and his custody credits remain at 50 percent. The
Court construes these claims as alleging violations of due
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects
persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property;
and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must
establish that one of these interests is at stake.”
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). The
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects two
distinct but related ...