Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00616/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00616-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID W. WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0616 GEB EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this civil rights action in forma

pauperis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The case was referred to this court by

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

On July 9, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint with leave to amend for

failure to state a claim, explained the complaint’s deficiencies, and explained that failure to cure

the deficiencies would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. On August 7, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The court has

reviewed that complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, for the following reasons, finds that

it, too, fails to state a claim for relief.

Plaintiff claims that the policy of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) by which prisoners are placed in administrative segregation for nonCase 2:07-cv-00616-GEB-EFB Document 10 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

disciplinary reasons violates state law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. He also claims that the policy of reviewing the placement of a prisoner in

administrative segregation for disciplinary reasons every 180 days violates state law and the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also seems to claim, as he did in his initial

complaint, that in 2001 he was placed in Administrative Segregation but never received review

of that placement within the time constraints established under the state administrative code.

As the court explained in the July 9, 2007, order, section 1983 creates a cause of action

against identified state actors for the violation of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of

the United States while acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). The violation of a state regulation where no federal right is implicated is

not remediable under section 1983. See Myron v. Terhune, 457 F.3d 996, 999-1000 (9th Cir.

2006). To state a claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a

plaintiff must allege a defendant denied plaintiff a specific right protected by the federal

constitution without procedures required by the constitution to ensure fairness, or deliberately

abused his power without any reasonable justification in aid of any government interest or

objective and only to oppress in a way that shocks the conscience. Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S.

472, 483-84 (1995); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 31 (1986); Board of Regents of State

Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). A prisoner has no protected interest in freedom

from administrative segregation. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim under these theories and this action must be

dismissed.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128

(9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file

amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a

claim).

Case 2:07-cv-00616-GEB-EFB Document 10 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

These findings and recommendations are 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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 27, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00616-GEB-EFB Document 10 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 3