Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01485/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01485-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAYLA SUGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE 

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01485-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, brings this § 1983 case against the Solano County Justice 

Center and the Solano County Sheriff’s Office, as well as several officers. ECF No. 1. Some of 

her allegations are sufficient to proceed, but others are not. I will grant plaintiff the opportunity 

to file either an amended complaint or an advisement that she wishes to proceed on the 

cognizable claims, with the understanding that I will recommend dismissal of the non-cognizable 

claims. I will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, which makes the 

required showing. 

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

Case 2:23-cv-01485-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/13/23 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

2

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. 

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Allegations

The complaint alleges that on July 10, 2023, Kamaan saw plaintiff receive her pro per 

legal supplies. ECF No. 1 at 3. Then, on July 16, when plaintiff was moved floors within the 

Solano County Justice Center, Kamaan confiscated and destroyed her pro per box, as well as 

other personal property. Id. at 3, 5. The box contained her legal documents, grievances, and 

witness statements for an active case plaintiff has pending in this district. Id. at 3. The complaint 

alleges that Kamaan did so to retaliate against her for filing a lawsuit against the facility. Id. 

Case 2:23-cv-01485-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

3

Kamaan wrote plaintiff up for demanding that her property be returned, and a disciplinary hearing 

followed. Id.

Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing was heard by officer K. Wilson on July 18, 2023. Id. at 4. 

According to the complaint, Wilson and officer Bubar manipulated facts of the July 16 incident at 

the hearing. Wilson stated that plaintiff refused to lock down, but, according to plaintiff, she was 

cuffed, written up, and placed in administrative segregation. Id.

Liberally construed, the allegations satisfy the pleading requirements for a First 

Amendment retaliation claim against Kamaan. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 

(internal citation omitted) (holding that “[w]ithin the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that 

such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did 

not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal”). 

Plaintiff’s remaining claims, however, are not cognizable. It is true that prisoners have a 

protected interest in their personal property. See Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 

1974). An authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process 

Clause; Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984) (citations omitted), however, “an 

unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a 

violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available,” id. at 533.

The complaint alleges that Kamaan confiscated and destroyed some of plaintiff’s legal 

and personal property. This claim is not cognizable, since a meaningful state post-deprivation 

remedy for her loss is available. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. California’s tort claim process 

provides that adequate post-deprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d at 813, 816-17 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim 

under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy.”); Kemp v. Skolnik, No. 

2:09-cv-02002-PMP, 2012 WL 366946, at *6 (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2012) (finding that the prisoner’s 

alleged loss or destruction of newspaper, magazines, and books failed to state a Fourteenth 

Case 2:23-cv-01485-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/13/23 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

4

Amendment claim pursuant to Hudson and noting that “[i]f Plaintiff wishes to recoup the value of 

the alleged lost materials, he will have to file a claim in small claims court in state court”).

Neither does the complaint adequately allege a due process claim regarding plaintiff’s 

disciplinary hearing. A prisoner has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from false

accusations of conduct that may lead to disciplinary sanctions. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 

450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). As long as a prisoner is afforded procedural due process in the 

disciplinary hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge generally fail to state a claim under section 

1983. See Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir. 1984). An exception exists when 

the fabrication of charges infringes on the inmate’s substantive constitutional rights, such as when 

false charges are made in retaliation for an inmate’s exercise of a constitutionally protected right. 

See Sprouse, 870 F.2d at 452 (holding that the filing of a false disciplinary charge in retaliation 

for a grievance filed by an inmate is actionable under § 1983). The complaint contains no 

allegation that either Wilson or Bubar manipulated facts at the disciplinary hearing to retaliate 

against plaintiff. 

The complaint lists as defendants Solano County Justice Center, Solano County Sheriff’s 

Office, Thomas Ferrar, the Facility Commander for the Solano County Sheriffs Office, and 

Lieutenant A. Hagen. ECF No. at 2, 7. The complaint does not allege how or to what extent 

either defendant Ferrar or Hagen violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. A complaint must 

specify how each named defendant is involved to state a claim for damages. The complaint also 

does not allege sufficient facts to establish municipal liability against the Justice Center or the 

Sheriff’s Office. See Lopez v. Solano Cnty. Just. Ctr., No. 2:23-cv-1023 CKD P, 2023 WL 

5417527, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2023) (finding that municipalities, such as the Solano County 

Justice Center, “cannot be held vicariously liable for damages under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees”) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 585 at 691, 694 (1978)); 

Johnson v. Solano Cnty. Sherriff, No. 2:22-cv-02061-DAD-CKD (PS), 2023 WL 158833, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023) (noting that the Solano County Sherriff’s department is not a proper 

defendant because a sheriff’s department is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983). 

Case 2:23-cv-01485-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/13/23 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

5

If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede 

the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to 

the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the 

current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s 

involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended 

Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended 

complaint, I will recommend that this action proceed on the cognizable claims and dismiss the 

non-cognizable claims. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is granted. 

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either seek leave to file 

an amended complaint or advise the court she wishes stand by her current complaint. If she 

selects the latter option, I will recommend that the claims found to be not cognizable be 

dismissed. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 

4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01485-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/13/23 Page 5 of 5