Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02727/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02727-3/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

DONALD GENE PHILLIPS, No. CIV S-06-2727-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 10).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 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

2

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff names as defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of the State

of California, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The gravamen

of the amended complaint is that, by placing prisoners who are also illegal immigrants into job

positions, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is denying those positions

to legal citizens, like plaintiff. Specifically, plaintiff alleges:

In essence the policy of employing and assigning illegal

immigrants is not only against Federal and State Law(s), Statute(s), and

Mandate(s). It is rewarding those persons who have entered the United

States illegally. Providing monetary benefits, education and special

privileges to persons who not only violated federal law by entering the

United States illegally, but doing so only to commit violation(s) of State

Law resulting in incarceration in State Prison. 

Plaintiff states that this “policy” has resulted in the benefits of work assignments as well as

educational and vocational assignments being unavailable to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also alleges that some inmates are required to serve 80% of their

sentences, while others are required to serve 50%. He states that inmates required to serve 50%

are given preferential treatment in job assignments and the like and that this is a violation of his

equal protection rights. 

Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. 

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 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

3

II. DISCUSSION

The amended complaint suffers from a number of fatal defects. In particular,

plaintiff cannot state a claim under § 1983 based on the alleged hiring of illegal aliens because

federal immigration law contains remedial provisions which foreclose a private civil rights

action. As to plaintiff’s purported equal protection claim, plaintiff has not alleged that he is

being treated differently than similarly situated inmates, nor has plaintiff alleged racial

discrimination. With respect to the named defendants, the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation is immune from suit and plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a nexus between

any alleged constitutional or statutory violation and defendant Schwarzenegger. 

A. Hiring Illegal Aliens

It is possible that § 1983 can provide a cause of action against persons acting

under color of state law who have violated rights guaranteed by federal statutes. See Blessing v.

Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997). However, where the federal statutes at issue contain

provisions for criminal penalties, judicial review, or administrative proceedings, the Supreme

Court has found that such remedial schemes are sufficiently comprehensive to foreclose an

independent § 1983 claim. See Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 521-22 (1990). 

The federal immigration statutes prohibiting the hiring of illegal aliens provide for criminal

penalties as well as administrative review. Therefore, the remedial scheme forecloses plaintiff’s

§ 1983 claim as a matter of law. 

B. Equal Protection Claim

Equal protection claims arise when a charge is made that similarly situated

individuals are treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. 

See San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972). Prisoners are protected from

invidious discrimination based on race. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

Racial segregation is unconstitutional within prisons save for the necessities of prison security

and discipline. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321 (1972) (per curiam). Prisoners are also

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 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

A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a 1

state agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782

(1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th cir. 1993) (en banc).

4

protected from intentional discrimination on the basis of their religion. See Freeman v. Arpaio,

125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997). In order to state a § 1983 claim based on a violation of the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that defendants

acted with intentional discrimination against plaintiff, or against a class of inmates which

included plaintiff, and that such conduct did not relate to a legitimate penological purpose. See

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (holding that equal protection claims

may be brought by a “class of one”); Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 740

(9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); Federal Deposit Ins.

Corp. v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir. 1991); Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998,

1010 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Plaintiff’s purported equal protection claim fails for at least two reasons. First, he

does not allege that he is being treated differently than similarly situated inmates (i.e., those who

must complete 80% of their sentences). Second, nothing in plaintiff’s allegations suggest racial

discrimination. 

C. Immunity

Plaintiff names as a defendant the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, the state agency responsible for incarceration of prisoners in California. The

Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against a state both by

its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley

Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition extends to suits against states

themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 1

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/24/07 Page 4 of 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

5

D. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff names as a defendant California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in his

supervisory capacity. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions

of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is

no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional

violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or had

actual knowledge of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. See id. When a defendant

holds a supervisory position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations

concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. 

See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Here, plaintiff does not allege any causal link between a cognizable constitutional

or statutory violation and defendant Schwarzenegger. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed.

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/24/07 Page 5 of 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

6

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/24/07 Page 6 of 6