United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO AMEND/SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT (ECF NOS. 27, 31,
35, 37, 38.) ORDER STRIKING LODGED SECOND AND THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINTS (ECF NOS. 32, 36.) ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF
NO. 23.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT
GARY
S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I.
BACKGROUND
Sylester
Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
January 3, 2019, at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On February 21,
2019, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 12.)
On
March 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint
as a matter of course. (ECF No. 23.) On June 3, 2019, June
28, 2019, July 26, 2019, and September 19, 2019, Plaintiff
filed five motions to amend or supplement the complaint. (ECF
Nos. 27, 31, 35, 37, 38.) On June 29, 2019 and July 26, 2019,
Plaintiff lodged proposed Second and Third Amended
Complaints. (ECF Nos. 32, 36.)
Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint is now before the court for
screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court shall also
address Plaintiff’s pending motions to amend or
supplement the complaint.
II.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the
action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A
complaint is required to 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). To state a viable claim, Plaintiff
must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79;
Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true,
legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility
of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility
standard. Id.
III.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff
is presently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione,
California. The allegations at issue in the First Amended
Complaint arose from events at the California Correctional
Institution in Tehachapi, California, when Plaintiff was
incarcerated there in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Plaintiff names Scott Kernan (Secretary, CDCR) as the sole
defendant (“Defendant”).
Plaintiff’s
allegations follow:
Plaintiff
is a non-violent Third Strike inmate in prison since 1999 for
indecent exposure. Following the passage of Proposition 57,
Plaintiff was immediately eligible for parole consideration
under the California Constitution, Article 1, § 32.
However, Plaintiff was denied a non-violent parole
consideration hearing under Proposition 57 because the
then-Secretary of the CDCR, defendant Scott Kernan, developed
Title 15 rules in April 2017 and adopted them so he could
willfully and deliberately block parole consideration for
Plaintiff, along with over three thousand other non-violent
Third Strike inmates.
Plaintiff
sued the CDCR in state court over the matter and was
appointed counsel. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff won and the
Santa Clara County Superior Court ordered the CDCR to provide
Plaintiff with immediate parole consideration as required by
Proposition 57. The CDCR then informed counsel that they were
giving up all rights to appeal because they agreed with the
Superior Court’s decision. Defendant may not give up
his right to appeal the court order and then challenge the
constitutionality of the order. Giving up appeal rights is an
admission of guilt, and therefore defendant Kernan has no
chance of success in the present lawsuit.
Defendant
Kernan has violated Plaintiff’s due process rights by
failing to implement the terms of the law created by
Proposition 57 when liberally construed. Defendant Kernan
issued regulations that allegedly resulted in a mismatch
between Plaintiff’s parole date consideration and
EPRD.[1] Plaintiff was entitled to a non-violent
parole consideration hearing pursuant to Proposition 57,
along with a statement of reasons why parole was denied.
These due process protections were not met.
Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief.
IV.
PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS
Now
pending are Plaintiff’s three motions to amend or
supplement the complaint, filed on June 3, 2019, June 28,
2019, July 26, 2019, and two motions to amend filed on
September 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 27, 31, 35, 38, 39.) Plaintiff
also lodged proposed Second and Third Amended Complaints on
June 28, 2019 and July 26, 2019, respectively. (ECF Nos. 32,
36.)
The
court has thoroughly reviewed the First Amended Complaint,
all of Plaintiff’s pending motions to amend or
supplement the complaint, the lodged Second Amended
Complaint, and the lodged Third Amended Complaint. All of
Plaintiff’s pending motions to amend, or supplement the
complaint shall be denied as moot because Plaintiff shall be
granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint complete in
itself without reference to any other complaint.
Plaintiff
has requested to add claims to the complaint for retaliation,
discrimination and violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The
court shall provide Plaintiff with the legal standards for
the proposed new claims. Plaintiff should review the
standards before deciding whether to bring new claims.
Plaintiff may not add new defendants for unrelated claims.
Plaintiff’s
requests to file a supplemental complaint to add allegations
of events occurring after this case was filed on June 3, 2019
shall be denied as futile.[2] Plaintiff proposes to add allegations
that he spoke with two analysts on July 11 and 12, 2019,
about a 602 prison appeal he filed at Salinas Valley State
Prison. Plaintiff reports that he was told by the analysts
that he does not qualify for parole consideration pursuant to
Proposition 57, and that his only remedy is to proceed under
habeas corpus.
This
information conveyed to Plaintiff in July 2019 is not
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims at issue in this case,
namely that defendant Kernan acted against Plaintiff when he
developed Title 15 rules in April 2017, and adopted them so
he could willfully and deliberately block parole
consideration for Plaintiff and other inmates. Moreover, this
Eastern District court lacks venue over claims arising from
allegations of events occurring at Salinas Valley State
Prison which is located in the Northern District of
California. Therefore, it would be futile for Plaintiff to
file a supplemental complaint to add allegations describing
what he was told in July 2019 about his qualification for
parole consideration.
V.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS IN THE FIRST ...