Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00874/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00874-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZANE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. WOODS, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement and Standards

Plaintiff Zane Hubbard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2015, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed 

on April 15, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 6
2

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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(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). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially 

plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Corcoran. He names the 

following defendants: (1) Correctional Officer J. Almaguer; (2) Registered Nurse D. Woods; (3) 

News Reporter Graciela Moreno; (4) Investigative Service Unit Officer Woodrow; and (5) 

Correctional Officer T. Franco. 

Plaintiff alleges that his civil rights complaint stems from his personal relationship with 

Graciela Moreno of ABC Action News while he was released from prison custody. Plaintiff 

contends that he had a very distasteful relationship with Ms. Moreno and he terminated it. 

Plaintiff now alleges that Ms. Moreno does not want to accept that nothing exists 

between them and has decided to use her status as a news reporter and a personal friend to 

request a favor from prison employees and court officers to harass and abuse Plaintiff into a 

relationship with her. 

Case 1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

Plaintiff alleges that Warden Connie Gipson, who he assumes is a personal friend of Mr. 

Moreno, has breached the security of the institution with electronic monitoring of Plaintiff in his 

cell without lawful excuse, justification or court order. Plaintiff asserts that the electronic 

monitoring of him in his cell is being shared with millions of people all over the world and other 

inmates. Plaintiff also believes that his activities of daily living are being shared with foreign 

countries and nationally. Plaintiff further alleges that the electronic monitoring allows the 

government, foreign governments, national and foreign citizens, prison employee and inmates to 

monitor and verbally and sexually harass him. Plaintiff asserts that the monitoring is known as 

military force, which is constitutionally prohibited from being used against him. Plaintiff 

contends that the electronic monitoring allows national and foreign governments to exploit and 

expose him and his property, along with threatening his life with sexual victimization, murder 

and extortion. 

Plaintiff contends that he was assaulted by prison guards in an unreasonable manner. 

Acting on a favor for Ms. Moreno, after the assault, Plaintiff was tied to a wheelchair with a 

sheet around his chest and ankles while already handcuffed behind his back and shackled at his 

feet. The alleged assault and related allegations are the apparent subject of another lawsuit 

identified as Hubbard v. Gutierrez, 1:14-cv-01560 MJS. (ECF No. 8, p. 6.) Plaintiff states that 

he successfully pled his claim, but was barred from obtaining relief because of an 

unconstitutional bill of attainder, ex post facto law. 

Plaintiff further alleges that on May 6, 2014, after being attacked by a correctional 

officer, Plaintiff was being medically evaluated by Defendant RN Woods. In the presence of 

Officer Woodrow, T. Franco, J. Medina, and J. Almaguer, Defendant Woods rubbed Plaintiff’s 

ass below the waist knowing it was not a required form of evaluation. Plaintiff told Defendant 

Woods to back up and he considered it to be homosexual behavior. Officer Woodrow, T. 

Franco, J. Ramirez, J. Medina and J. Almaguer did not investigate the behavior.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Woods is a homosexual male.

Case 1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Plaintiff further alleges that via electronic monitoring, Ms. Moreno harassingly and 

excessively asks Plaintiff to masturbate to her and that harassment will not stop until he becomes 

acquainted with her. 

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, injunctive relief and a stay. 

III. Discussion

A. Frivolous Nature of Allegations

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. Id. at 325.

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations that he is being electronically monitored in his cell and that 

the monitoring of him is being viewed by Ms. Moreno and millions of people all over the world, 

including foreign governments, are clearly delusional and baseless. Plaintiff’s additional 

allegations concerning Ms. Moreno, a news reporter, also are baseless and wholly fanciful 

allegations. These purported claims cannot be cured by amendment. 

B. Eighth Amendment

The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 

995 (1992) (citations omitted). The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is 

contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8

(quotation marks and citation omitted). A sexual assault on a prisoner by a correctional officer is 

“deeply offensive to human dignity.” Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(quotation and citation omitted). However, not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives 

rise to a federal cause of action. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178

(2010) (per curiam). Necessarily excluded from constitutional recognition is the de minimis use 

of force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind. 

Case 1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 6
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

Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-8, 130 S.Ct. at 1178 (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10) (quotations marks 

omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Woods do not include any evidence of 

undue force. At best, Plaintiff alleges a single touch of his buttocks by RN Woods during a 

medical evaluation following an asserted assault. This does not rise to the level of a 

constitutional violation. See, e.g., Berryhill v. Schiro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1998) (brief 

touch of prisoner’s buttocks by prison employees did not constitute Eighth Amendment 

violation). Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies of this claim and further leave to 

amend is not warranted. 

C. Failure to Intervene

The failure to intervene can support an excessive force claim where the bystanderofficers had a realistic opportunity to intervene but failed to do so. Lolli v. County of Orange, 

351 F.3d 410, 418 (9th Cir. 2003); Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir. 2000); 

Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Motley v. Parks, 383 F.3d 

1058, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004) (neither officers who participated in the harassing search nor officers 

who failed to intervene and stop the harassing search were entitled to qualified immunity). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against Officer Woodrow, T. Franco, 

J. Ramirez, J. Medina and J. Almaguer for failure to intervene. There is no indication that these 

individuals failed to intervene in any alleged sexual assault or abuse of Plaintiff during the 

medical evaluation. As noted above, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable constitutional claim 

arising from the alleged touching of his buttocks during a medical evaluation. 

Plaintiff has been unable to cure this claim and further leave to amend is not warranted. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s complaint contains frivolous claims and fails to state any cognizable claim 

upon which relief can be granted. As discussed above, further leave to amend is not warranted. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable 

section 1983 claim. 

Case 1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

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

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839, (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 6