Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00041/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00041-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZANE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. DE OCHOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00041-DAD-SAB-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED 

AND THAT THIS ACTION COUNT AS A 

STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g).

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed May 21, 1015.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP Corcoran, brings this civil rights action against Defendants 

Sergeant De Ochoa and Correctional Officer (C/O) Rodriguez, employees of the CDCR at CSP 

Corcoran, where the event at issue occurred.

Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint filed on January 13, 2014. On June 20, 

2014, an order was entered, dismissing the original complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file 

an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) In that order, the Court noted that Plaintiff alleged that on 

November 23, 2013, while on the yard, officers directed him to submit to a strip search. Plaintiff 

asked why, and Sgt. De Ochoa responded that they thought he had contraband in his rectum. 

Plaintiff responded with expletives in both English and Spanish. Plaintiff alleged that, in 

Case 1:14-cv-00041-DAD-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/28/16 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

response, he was made to stay outside in the cold for half an hour, unclothed, until they made 

him squat and cough. In the June 20, 2014, order, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a 

claim for relief. The Court provided Plaintiff with the applicable legal standard for deliberate 

indifference under the Eighth Amendment, and advised Plaintiff that he had not alleged facts 

sufficient to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff was specifically advised that even assuming the 

yard was cold and wet during the winter months, subjecting inmates to strip searches upon entry 

to and exit from an outdoor exercise yard does not result in the inmates being subjected to 

conditions so severe or prolonged that they rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff was also advised that the mere 

public nature of the searches was not sufficient to implicate the Eighth Amendment. Somers v. 

Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 622-23 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff was further advised that deliberate 

non-compliance with the orders of correctional officials does not convert the consequences that 

flow from that non-compliance into punishment, Rodriguez v. Briley, 403 F.3d 952, 953 (7th 

Cir. 2005), and that no Eighth Amendment violation occurred because the deprivation was 

caused by Plaintiff’s decision not to comply. Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 216 (5th Cir. 1998).

In response, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 7, 2014. (ECF No. 9). In 

the first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on November 23, 2013, with approximately 

twenty-eight homosexual male inmates and ten male correctional officers present, Defendant 

Rodriguez told Plaintiff to strip and bend at the waist. Plaintiff refused and asked why he was 

singled out for a cavity search. Defendant De Ochoa told Plaintiff that “I think you have 

something in you’re a**.” (Am. Compl. ¶ IV.) Other officers told Plaintiff “in a homosexual 

manner” that he needed to submit to a cavity search. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that this constituted 

sexual harassment and excessive force. Officers confiscated Plaintiff’s clothing and left him 

naked in front of male and female officers and nurses. Plaintiff responded with expletives. Half 

an hour later, C/O Hobbs (not a defendant) and other officers strip-searched Plaintiff again, 

forcing him to squat and cough three times.

Plaintiff alleged that he was illegally surveilled on a twenty-four hour basis under the 

Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), so that officers could be sure that 

Case 1:14-cv-00041-DAD-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/28/16 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

Plaintiff was not concealing any items. Plaintiff alleges that through these means, authorities 

knew that Plaintiff was homophobic. Plaintiff believed that Defendants acted out of 

discrimination due to Plaintiff’s race, gender, gender identity, religion, and sexual orientation. 

Plaintiff believed that correctional officers sought to influence him to become homosexual. 

Plaintiff alleged that he was sexually harassed and threatened daily by prison authorities. 

Plaintiff alleged that he had been subjected to unclothed searches around many other male 

inmates who humiliated him by taunting him about his genitalia and bragging about their sexual 

acts. Plaintiff alleged that other than sexual harassment, Defendant De Ochoa had no reasonable 

suspicion to search Plaintiff in front of others. Plaintiff alleged that the yard was not a high risk 

security area, but inmates were searched before entering the yard, in their cells, then segregated 

in cages on the yard. Plaintiff alleged that the strip searches were very disrespectful and 

threatening to Plaintiff’s integrity. 

On April 23, 2015, an order was entered, dismissing the first amended complaint and 

granting Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The Court analyzed 

Plaintiff’s claims as Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement, Fourth Amendment 

unreasonable search, due process, equal protection, verbal threats, FISA, Fourth Amendment 

privacy, and state law claims. The Court addressed the applicable legal standard for each claim, 

and found that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state any cognizable claim upon 

which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act. (ECF No. 10, 11:18.) The Court found that justice required providing Plaintiff with another 

opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies identified by the Court. 

II.

ANALYSIS

The May 21, 2015, second amended complaint is 39 pages long, and consists mostly of 

rambling narrative, interspersed with generalized allegations regarding correctional officials in 

general. Plaintiff names as Defendants Sgt. De Ochoa and C/O Rodriguez. Plaintiff makes 

arguments about the constitutional rights of criminal defendants in general. Plaintiff contends 

that he has been denied the right to competent counsel, and has therefore been deprived of due 

Case 1:14-cv-00041-DAD-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/28/16 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

process. Plaintiff has not sought the appointment of counsel in this case. Plaintiff asserts vague 

and conclusory statements about electronic surveillance, alleging that it is “used to harass and 

embarrass and destroy inmates’ life, liberty and property.” (ECF No. 11, 5:5.) Plaintiff makes 

unspecified allegations about sexual misconduct, and refers to regulations regarding employee 

responsibility to report sexual misconduct. Plaintiff refers to National Security Agency wiretaps, 

forms of communication, and the same FISA arguments that he made in the first amended 

complaint. 

Plaintiff does refer to the event at issue. Plaintiff alleges that he was in a cage on the 

yard, and that Defendant Rodriguez ordered him to strip and bend at the waist. Plaintiff alleges 

that he refused on the ground that no other inmates were being subjected to a strip search. 

Plaintiff asked to speak to the Block Sergeant, Defendant De Ochoa. Plaintiff asked De Ochoa 

why he was the only inmate being searched. Sgt. De Ochoa responded that he thought Plaintiff 

had something in his rectum. Plaintiff indicated that he refused to submit to a cavity search, but 

he would submit to a “regular search.” (Id. 12:21.) Plaintiff alleges that his clothes were 

confiscated, and he was left in the cage naked for thirty minutes. 

After thirty minutes, Plaintiff was advised that he would be permitted to leave the cage if 

he squatted and coughed three times. Plaintiff alleges that he did so, but Officer Hobbs told him 

to do it again, which Plaintiff alleges “was completely unreasonable.” (Id. 12:26.) 

In the April 23, 2015, screening order, Plaintiff was advised that on the facts alleged, the 

search to which Plaintiff was subjected did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Koch v. Ricketts, 

82 F.3d 317, 318 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s allegations failed to state a claim for a violation of 

the Fourth Amendment. Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Regarding the conduct of the Defendants at issue in this lawsuit, Plaintiff merely restates the 

allegations of the first amended complaint. Plaintiff fails to add any new or addition facts that 

state a claim for relief.

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standard and the deficiencies in 

Case 1:14-cv-00041-DAD-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/28/16 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

his pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is 

largely identical to the original complaint and first amended complaint. Based upon the 

allegations in Plaintiff’s original complaint, first amended complaint, and second amended 

complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would 

support a claim for violations of the Eighth Amendment or Fourth Amendment by Defendants 

De Ochoa and Rodriguez, and further amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 

F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may not deny leave to amend when 

amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds 

that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the dismissal count as a strike 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, the parties may file 

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

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00041-DAD-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/28/16 Page 5 of 5