Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01068/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01068-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The caption of plaintiff’s complaint identifies his name as Mihiel Leinweber. The inmate 1

appeal attached to the complaint shows that the correct spelling of plaintiff’s first name is “Mikhiel.”

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKHIEL LEINWEBER, 1

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1068 MCE DAD P

vs.

STEVE MOORE, Warden, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. The proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with

Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order filed May 30, 2006, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

was denied without prejudice and plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a new application. 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis filed on June 26, 2006, makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01068-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). Pursuant to the screening requirement, the court must dismiss a prisoner’s claims if

they are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Similarly, when any plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in federal court in

forma pauperis, the court is required to dismiss the case if the court determines that the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at

327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an

arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989);

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim

that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court will accept as true the allegations of the complaint. See

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court will also

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve doubts in the

plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In the present case, plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in California State Prison,

Sacramento. His claims arose at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) in 2005. The three

Case 2:06-cv-01068-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 2

F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

3

defendants are Steve Moore, warden of DVI; Rudy Martinez, correctional officer at DVI; and H.

Hughes, correctional lieutenant at DVI.

Plaintiff alleges erroneously that he has brought no other lawsuits. This court’s

records reveal that plaintiff filed four previous lawsuits in this district. Those four lawsuits are: 2

Mikhiel J. Leinweber v. Stanislaus County Sheriff, case No. CIV S-04-1163 GEB GGH P (a civil

rights action dismissed Dec. 7, 2004, for failure to file an amended complaint); Mikhiel J.

Leinweber v. Stanislaus County Sheriffs, et al., case No. CIV S-04-1227 WBS DAD P,

transferred to the Fresno Division and assigned case No. CIV F-04-6021 OWW LJO P (a civil

rights action dismissed Nov. 12, 2004, for failure to file an in forma pauperis application);

Mikhiel J. Leinweber v. Stanislaus County Sheriff, case No. CIV S-04-1229 WBS GGH P,

transferred to the Fresno Division and assigned case No. CIV F-6060 REC TAG P (a habeas

action dismissed Jan. 19, 2005, for failure to allege habeas claims); and Mikhiel J. Leinweber v.

Assistant Sheriff Larson, case No. CIV S-04-1351 LKK GGH P, transferred to the Fresno

Division and assigned case No. CIV F-6077 REC DLB P (a civil rights action dismissed Dec. 10,

2004, for failure to file an in forma pauperis application). Plaintiff is cautioned that civil

complaints filed in federal district courts when he is a prisoner must include information about

all cases he has brought while a prisoner, regardless of the courts in which the cases were brought

and regardless of whether the cases are pending or closed.

Plaintiff alleges that he exhausted administrative remedies by completing the

CDCR grievance process. Documents attached to the complaint demonstrate that plaintiff filed

an inmate appeal on September 17, 2005, pursued the appeal to the director’s level, and received

a director’s level decision on March 29, 2006.

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01068-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Plaintiff’s statement of claim is as follows:

On 9-17-06 [sic] C/O rudy martinez made sexual comments

to me in which he was referring to my mother a retired

Correctional Officer he worked with for several years, at Duel [sic]

Vocational Institution.

On 11-1-05 Lt. H. Hughes denied my complaint after

receiving detailed letters from my mother which outlined his prior

misconduct of like offenses. All of these letters are enclosed with

responses.

Through the entire process Warden Steve Moore failed to

take any action.

(Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks only declaratory relief:

I am seeking the court to grant relief by a finding that I was

subject so [sic] sexual harassment by a correctional Officer, and

that I was subject to cruel and unusual punishment by this sexual

harassment.

(Id.)

In his inmate appeal, plaintiff set forth this description of the problem:

C/O R. Martinez has made sexual comments to me about my

mother, who is a retired C/O, that use [sic] to work at D.V.I., i.e. -

“your mother always wanted to suck this” while pointing toward

his genitles [sic] - and “your mother was a bitch and your [sic] just

like her.” These actions are unbecoming of a peace officer, sexual

harassment to me, and falls far below the standard set forth in

Penal Code 6035.

(Id. at 6.) He requested disciplinary action: 

C/O R. Martinez should be placed on administrative leave pending

a full investigation. When my allegations are confirmed by the

many witnesses, C/O Martinez should be removed from the

department - but at least an adverse action.

(Id.) At the first formal level, defendant Hughes interviewed plaintiff, defendant Martinez, and

an inmate witness identified by plaintiff. Plaintiff indicated that he had nothing to add except the

name of the inmate witness. The officer denied making inappropriate statements about plaintiff’s

mother, and the inmate witness denied having any knowledge of the conduct alleged by plaintiff. 

The appeal was denied as unfounded. At the second formal level, a correctional counselor

Case 2:06-cv-01068-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

reviewed the documents submitted by plaintiff, and the chief deputy warden denied the appeal on

the ground that the allegation of staff misconduct was unfounded. At the director’s level, the

matter was reviewed by an appeals examiner, all submitted documentation and arguments were

considered, and the appeal was denied.

The supporting documentation attached to plaintiff’s complaint consists of letters

written by plaintiff’s mother to defendant Moore and the director of the CDCR. In these letters,

plaintiff’s mother reported plaintiff’s complaints of bullying and harassment by defendant

Martinez. She stated that defendant Martinez had engaged in misconduct, including rude and

sexual remarks, when she worked with him at DVI, although she did not report any of his

misconduct.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges under penalty of perjury that defendant Martinez

made sexual comments about plaintiff’s mother on one date. In his inmate appeal, plaintiff

quoted two remarks. The only inmate witness identified by plaintiff during his inmate appeal

denied having any knowledge of the conduct alleged by plaintiff. Despite plaintiff’s assertion in

the inmate appeal that he had many witnesses, he has not supported his civil rights complaint

with the declarations of any person who witnessed the alleged sexual harassment. Plaintiff’s

mother was not a witness, and her letters reporting what plaintiff told her do not constitute

evidence that plaintiff was in fact subjected to sexual harassment by defendant Martinez in

September 2005.

Plaintiff’s claim of sexual harassment based solely on two remarks made on a

single date fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim on which relief can be granted. Even when

plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, as they must be for screening purposes, the allegations

fail to establish that defendant Martinez engaged in conduct that violated the Eighth Amendment.

In general, allegations of verbal harassment or abuse do not state a claim

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997)

(abusive language directed at the prisoner’s religious and ethnic background was insufficient to

Case 2:06-cv-01068-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/04/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

state a constitutional deprivation). While there are circumstances in which harassment may rise

to the level of cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff’s allegations do not rise to that level. 

Compare Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 528-30 (1984) (malicious cell searches and

“calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs” may implicate the Eighth Amendment), and

Watson v. Jones, 980 F.2d 1165, 1165-66 (8th Cir. 1992) (an Eighth Amendment claim was

stated where a female correctional officer sexually harassed two male inmates on an almost daily

basis for two months by conducting pat-down searches that included deliberate examination of

the inmates’ genitalia and anus), with Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996),

amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (“disrespectful and assaultive comments” were not

enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment where there was no indication that the prison guards’

comments were unusually gross even for a prison setting or that the comments were calculated to

and did cause psychological harm to the prisoner), Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139

(9th Cir. 1987) (directing vulgar language at prisoner does not state a constitutional violation),

and Minifield v. Butikofer, 298 F. Supp. 2d 900, 902-03 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (sexual comments and

gestures by two officers did not implicate Eighth Amendment where neither officer exposed his

genitals or touched the prisoner in a sexual manner). Mere verbal abuse, without more, does not

state an Eighth Amendment claim. Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197-98 (9th Cir.

2000) (distinguishing mere verbal abuse from a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment right to be free

from sexual abuse).

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Hughes and Moore are also frivolous,

both factually and legally. There is no legal support for plaintiff’s suggestion that the defendants

should have granted his inmate appeal solely on the basis of allegations made by a non-witness

who failed to report misconduct she observed but did not report in the past. The letters from

plaintiff’s mother provided no direct evidence of sexual harassment by defendant Martinez.

It does not appear that plaintiff can amend his pleading to state a § 1983 claim

against any defendant in this action. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application should be denied

Case 2:06-cv-01068-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/04/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

and this action should be dismissed with prejudice. See Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218,

1221-22 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the docket

for this action to reflect that plaintiff’s first name is spelled Mikhiel; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied;

and

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice as legally and factually frivolous and

for failure to state any claim upon which relief may be granted.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 1, 2006.

DAD:13

lein1068.56

Case 2:06-cv-01068-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/04/06 Page 7 of 7