Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01943/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01943-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joel Mejia Plasencia, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Unicorn Industries, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1943-PHX-MHM (VAM)

ORDER

On June 28, 2005, Plaintiff Joel Mejia Plasencia, presently confined in the Federal

Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona ("FCI-Phoenix"), filed a Civil Rights Complaint

by a Prisoner ("Complaint") pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.

388 (1971) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application to Proceed").

Plaintiff also filed a "Notice of Documents Delivered to Defendants" (Doc. #3) on

July 15, 2005 and a "Memo Brief" (Doc. #4) on July 26, 2005 (Doc. #4).

Application to Proceed

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of two

hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for this action. 

An initial partial filing fee of fifty-one dollars and thirty-four cents ($51.34) will be

assessed by this Order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct the

Case 2:05-cv-01943-MHM--VAM Document 5 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 4
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 -

appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust account and

forward it to the Clerk of Court. 

Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent (20%) of the

preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. The Court will direct the

appropriate agency to collect these monthly payments, which will be forwarded to the Clerk

of Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the

filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full, he

must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within one hundred twenty (120)

days of the date of his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within

one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of his release, the action will be dismissed, unless

Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing

fee.

Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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 Plaintiff 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). The Court also must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if

Plaintiff fails to exhaust any administrative remedy available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts,

a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend the complaint before dismissal of the

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court

is required to grant leave to amend "if a complaint can possibly be saved," but not if the

Complaint "lacks merit entirely." Id. at 1129. A court therefore should grant leave to amend

if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, or if it appears at all possible

Case 2:05-cv-01943-MHM--VAM Document 5 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 4
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 -

that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130. Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed without

leave to amend because the Complaint cannot be saved by amendment.

Complaint

The following are named as Defendants to the Complaint: 1) Unicorn Industries

Phoenix; 2) FCI-Phoenix; 3) FCI-Tucson; and 4) FCI-Lomoc, California. Plaintiff's sole

ground for relief in the Complaint is that he was denied employment and rehabilitation

opportunities through Unicorn Industries because he is not a United States citizen and is

subject to deportation. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages.

Failure to State a Claim

There is no constitutional right to rehabilitation or employment programs. See

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1982); see Johnson v. Moore, 926 F.2d 921,

925 n.3 (9th Cir. 1991) (inmate’s claim that prison’s failure to provide educational or drug

rehabilitation programs violated his Eighth Amendment rights is “plainly without merit”).

Because Plaintiff has no constitutional right to rehabilitation or employment programs, he

has failed to state a claim under Bivens.

To the extent that Plaintiff attempts raise an equal protection claim, Plaintiff's status

as an alien subject to deportation does not afford him special protection under the Equal

Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176,

1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (prisoners subjected to Immigration and Naturalization Service

detainers failed to show equal protection violation in Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") rule

excluding prisoners with detainers from sentence reduction eligibility after completion of .

. .treatment program, since detainer exclusion . . . did not result in aliens as a group being

treated differently from other persons based on their membership in class of incarcerated

aliens, and detainer exclusion was reasonably grounded in BOP's concern that prisoners with

detainer posed flight risk). Accordingly, Plaintiff has also failed to state an equal protection

claim.

Dismissal Without Leave to Amend

Case 2:05-cv-01943-MHM--VAM Document 5 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Because the Court is convinced that the deficiencies in the Complaint cannot be cured

by amendment, see Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Broughton

v. Cutter Lab, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)), the Court’s dismissal of the Complaint will

be without leave to amend, and the Court will order that the action be dismissed and

judgment entered.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff's “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (NonHabeas)” is GRANTED;

(2) Plaintiff is OBLIGATED to pay the statutory filing fee of two hundred fifty dollars

($250.00) for this action. Plaintiff is ASSESSED an initial partial filing fee of fifty-one

dollars and thirty-four cents ($51.34). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with

this Court’s Order to the director of FCI-Phoenix filed concurrently herewith;

(3) The Complaint and action are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND,

for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and

the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly; and 

(4) The Clerk of Court shall make an entry on the docket in this matter indicating that

the dismissal for failure to state a claim falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 20th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01943-MHM--VAM Document 5 Filed 10/24/05 Page 4 of 4