Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01922/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01922-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOMER EARL HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM UNDER FEDERAL LAW

(Doc. 1)

First Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Homer Earl Hawkins, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action in 

Kings County Superior Court on July 7, 2014. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“CSATF”), and he brings this 

action against Warden Ralph Diaz, Sergeant B. Carr, and Associate Warden M. C. Davis. 

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the destruction and/or loss of his personal property items, which 

occurred in conjunction with his transfer from Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) to CSATF

in June 2013. Plaintiff seeks $550 in property-related damages and a transfer to an institution 

designated for his spine and back issues. On December 3, 2014, Defendants Davis and Carr filed 

a notice of removal based on federal question jurisdiction.1 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

///

 

1 There is no indication Defendant Diaz was ever served.

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 7
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

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

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

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner 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). 

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 

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 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

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). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 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), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th 

Cir. 2009). 

III. Discussion

A. Jurisdiction

Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state court any action “of which 

the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” Federal courts “shall have 

original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. ' 1331. The removal statute is strictly construed, and Defendants bear 

the burden of establishing grounds for removal. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 

U.S. 28, 32, 123 S.Ct. 366 (2002); Provincial Government of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 7
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

582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). As a threshold matter, courts “must consider whether federal 

jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is made to removal, and even if both parties stipulate to 

federal jurisdiction,” Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations 

omitted), and “federal jurisdiction ‘must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 

in the first instance,’” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded 

complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff=s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 

482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The rule 

makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive 

reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, Inc. 482 U.S. at 392. 

Plaintiff cites to 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 

and 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), and he alleges that he was injured when his 

appliances were taken and he was unable to move. These allegations are sufficient to demonstrate 

the existence of federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Plaintiff also cites to the 

Constitution, although his theory for any constitutional claim is not identified. For the reasons set 

for below, Plaintiff fails to state any claims for relief under federal law and if he is unable to cure 

those deficiencies, this action may be subject to remand to Kings County Superior Court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Az., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court 

will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims.

The Court can glean little from the complaint regarding the factual bases for Plaintiff’s 

federal ADA and/or RA claims but given that the main focus of this suit appears to be the 

destruction and/or loss of his personal property by PVSP staff during the course of his transfer to 

CSATF, sufficiency of the relationship between the federal and state claims may be an issue.

2

28 

 

2

Plaintiff appears to recognize that redress for the destruction and/or loss of his personal property items is confined to 

state law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th 

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 7
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

U.S.C. § 1367(a). Therefore, Plaintiff is placed on notice that “the federal courts’ original 

jurisdiction over federal questions carries with it jurisdiction over state law claims that ‘derive 

from a common nucleus of operative fact,’ such that ‘the relationship between [the federal] claim 

and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one 

constitutional case.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164-65, 118 S.Ct. 

523 (1997) (quoting Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 

(1966)). Federal and state claims that do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and 

therefore do not form part of the same case or controversy, may not procced together in this 

action. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Stevedoring Servs. of America, Inc. v. Eggert, 953 F.2d 552, 557-58 

(9th Cir. 1992); Valles v. Pima Cnty., 642 F.Supp.2d 936, 938-39 (D.Ariz. 2009); Hernandez v. 

Hilltop Fin. Mortg., 622 F.Supp.2d 842, 853 (N.D.Cal. 2007).

B. Federal ADA and RA Claims

Title II of the ADA and section 504 of the RA prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

disability. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). “To establish a violation of 

Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; 

(2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard to a 

public entity’s services, programs, or activities; and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was by 

reason of [his] disability,” and “[t]o establish a violation of § 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must show 

that (1) [he] is handicapped within the meaning of the RA; (2) [he] is otherwise qualified for the 

benefit or services sought; (3) [he] was denied the benefit or services solely by reason of [his] 

handicap; and (4) the program providing the benefit or services receives federal financial 

assistance.” Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1052; accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021-22 

(9th Cir. 2010).

Although Plaintiff cites to the ADA and the RA in his complaint, he fails to allege any 

facts supporting a claim that he was excluded from or discriminated against with regard to 

services, programs, or activities by reason of his disability. In as much as Plaintiff is seeking 

 

Cir. 1994); see also Escamilla v. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 141 Cal.App.4th 498, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 (Cal.Ct.App. 

2006).

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/28/15 Page 4 of 7
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

transfer to a designated institution for his spine and back issues, Plaintiff is informed that 

treatment, or lack of treatment, concerning a medical condition does not provide a basis upon 

which to impose liability under the ADA. Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1022 (citing Bryant v. Madigan, 

84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996)). Additionally, while Plaintiff may name the appropriate entity 

or state officials in their official capacities, individual capacity suits against individual prison 

employees in their personal capacities are precluded under the ADA and the RA. E.g., Heinke v. 

Cnty. of Tehama Sheriff’s Dept., No. CVI S-12-2433 LKK/KJN, 2013 WL 3992407, at *7 (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 1, 2013); White v. Smyers, No. 2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P, 2012 WL 6518064, at *6 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012); Mosier v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 1:11-CV-01034-

MJS (PC), 2012 WL 2577524, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2012); Shaughnessy v. Hawaii, No. 09-

00569 JMS/BMK, 2010 WL 2573355, at *8 (D.Hawai’i Jun. 24, 2010); Anaya v. Campbell, No. 

CIV S-07-0029 GEB GGH P, 2009 WL 3763798, at *5-6 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 9, 2009); Roundtree v. 

Adams, No. 1:01-CV-06502 OWW LJO, 2005 WL 3284405, at *8 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 1, 2005) 

(quoting Thomas v. Nakatani, 128 F.Supp.2d 684, 691 (D. Haw. 2000)).

Plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims are dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim.

C. Constitutional Claims

While Plaintiff refers to the Constitution in his complaint, he identifies no facts supporting 

any viable federal claims arising from violation of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff is 

provided with the following standard for guidance in amending his complaint.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely 

provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. 

Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff 

must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each 

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/28/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t 

of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-

08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under federal 

law. The Court will grant Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 

1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit 

by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint, George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 

(7th Cir. 2007), and Plaintiff is cautioned that an amended complaint supercedes the original 

complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it 

must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 

220. Plaintiff must clarify the factual bases for his legal claims, against whom each claim is 

proceeding, and the relief he is seeking, as there is inconsistency between the factual allegations, 

the claims, and the relief sought.3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED 

that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

under federal law;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;4

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

///

///

///

 

3 E.g., Plaintiff cites to the ADA and RA but sets forth no facts supporting a claim, and he seeks a prison transfer but 

that form of relief is not tethered to any legal claim or factual allegations.

4

Plaintiff is not required to allege any claims under section 1983, but that is the Court’s standard form complaint

which is available. Plaintiff should not view the citation to section 1983 as either encouraging or discouraging him 

from bringing section 1983 claims. Plaintiff is entitled to cross out the reference to section 1983 and/or to add 

whichever federal and/or state claims he wishes to pursue in this civil action. 

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/28/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, his 

federal claims will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/28/15 Page 7 of 7