Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01971/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01971-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DE’WANN WHITE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STU SHERMAN, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01971-RRB

DISMISSAL ORDER

De’Wann White, a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials of the California

DepartmentofCorrections and Rehabilitation(“CDCR”).

1 White’s Complaintarises outofhis

incarceration at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran, California

(“CSATF”).White is currentlyincarcerated atthe Los Angeles CountyState Prison, Lancaster,

California.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

This Court is required to screencomplaints brought byprisoners seeking reliefagainst

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

2 This Court must

1

Inadditionto WardenSherman,White names as Defendants:Associate Warden V.

Ramirez; Associate Warden J. Collins; Correctional Sergeant C. G. Beltran; Correctional

Officer J. Davis; and Senior Librarian V. Hampson.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 1

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 13
dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that

“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

3 Likewise, a

prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies as may be available,4irrespective of

whether those administrative remedies provide for monetary relief.

5

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading

standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must

contain“a short and plainstatement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

6

“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does notrequire ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but

it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

7

Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including the rule that complaints filed by pro se prisoners

are to be liberally construed, affording the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, and dismissal

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

4 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93–95 (2006) (“proper

exhaustion” under § 1997e(a)is mandatoryand requires proper adherence to administrative

proceduralrules);Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (exhaustion of administrative

remedies must be completed before filing suit).

5 See Booth, 532 U.S. at 734.

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 2

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 13
should be granted only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff canplead no facts in

support of his claim that would entitle him or her to relief.

8

This requires the presentationof factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim

for relief.

9

“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability. . . ‘stops shortofthe line betweenpossibilityand plausibilityof entitlement to relief.’”

10

Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint,

a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true.11“Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

12

In addition to its powers in screening complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), a trial

court may dismiss a complaint forfailure to state a claim sua sponte where it is obvious that

the plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief.

13

8 Wilhelm v. Rotham, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).

9

Iqbal, 556 U.S.at678–69; see Moss v. U.S.SecretService, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th

Cir. 2009) (quoting and applying Iqbal and Twombly).

10

Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

11

Id.

12

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

13 See Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); see

generally 5B Charles AlanWright,Arthur R. Miller, MaryKayKane, Richard L. Marcus,Adam

N. Steinman Federal Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1357 (3d ed.).

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 3

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 13
II. GRAVAMEN OF COMPLAINT

White’s Complaint consists of 35 pages, including 17 pages of legal argument, to

which is attached 282 pages of exhibits. Inthe ten-page “Statement of Claim,” White alleges

in chronological order that he was:

September 11 – 19, 2013 – denied the use of a telephone and outdoor exercise;

September30 throughOctober 10, 2013 – confined to his cellbetween,withoutproper

justification;

October 21 – 27, 2013 – confined to his cell and denied the opportunity to shower;

November 8 – 17, 2013 – denied the opportunity to shower;

November 25 through December 16, 2013 – denied outdoor exercise;

December 21, 2013, through February 8, 2014 – incarcerated in a cell without hot

water;

February 10, 2014 – denied outdoor exercise and use of the day room;

February 17 – 20, 2014 – confined to his cell and denied a shower for the 96-hour

period;

February 25 – 26, 2014 – denied a shower for the 48-hour period;

March 14, 2014 – denied participation in a pizza program;

April 15, 2014 – informed prisonofficials ofa ventilationproblem and bugs inPlaintiff’s

cell;

May 23, 2014 – denied library privileges;

June 14, 2014 – denied day room, phone, and shower privileges;

June 23, 2014 – denied a shower, use of the day room, and use of the telephone;

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 4

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 13
June 24, 2014 – denied a shower, use of the day room, and use of the telephone;

July 3, 2014 – denied library privileges in retaliation for filing a CDC 602 Grievance;

July 3 – July 7, 2014 – Improperly denied outdoor exercise.

August 28, 2014 – suffered nausea, vomiting, intense migraines, and bodyaches as

a result of noxious fumes blowing into his cell from the air vent;

September 9, 2014 – denied day room privileges and church;

September 17, 2014 – denied showers;

September 17 through October 8, 2014 – confined to his cell for 24hours/day;

September 30, 2014 – suffered coughing and choking as a result of noxious fumes in

his cell; and

October 5, 2014 – damage to White’s personal property.

On October 8, 2014, White was transferred to the Los Angeles County State Prison.

The Complaint, dated December 8, 2014, was received bythe Court onDecember 11, 2014.

In his 17-page “Arguments” appears to raise several issues unrelated to the matters

identified in White’s preceding “Statement of Claim.” For example: (1) vague allegations

concerning being labeled a snitchas result of whichhe was treated like a pariah;(2)improper

disclosure of a CDC 602 (grievance);(3)unspecified retaliationforfiling a grievance;(4) staff

misconduct; (5) excessive delay providing the exchange of blankets; (6) failure to provide

adequate cleaning supplies;(7) denial of access to the courts; and (8)opening inmate’s legal

mail.

White seeks a declarationbythis Court that the acts of Defendants violated his rights

under the Constitutionand Federal law; compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000;

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 5

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 13
punitive damages in the amount of $120,000; attorney’s fees and costs; and suchother and

further relief deemed necessary.

III. DISCUSSION

Exhaustion. Prior to seeking judicial relief under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”), a prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies as may be available,14

irrespective of whether those administrative remedies provide for monetary relief.

15 The

Supreme Courthas stated: “Althoughnot jurisdictional, exhaustionis nonetheless mandatory,

and there is no discretion to excuse it.”

16

“Proper exhaustion” means “complet[ing] the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules,”

17

including

“compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no

adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the

course of its proceedings.”

18

“The level of detail necessaryina grievance to comply with the

grievance procedures will varyfrom system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison's

requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”

19

“A

14 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (exhaustion of

administrative remedies must be completed before filing suit).

15 See Booth, 532 U.S. at 734.

16 Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002).

17 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007).

18 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 91 (2006).

19 Jones, 549 U.S. at 218.

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 6

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 13
complaint is subject to dismissal forfailure to state a claim if the allegations of the Complaint,

taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.”

20

California provides forthree levels ofreview of prisonergrievances.21 The voluminous

exhibits attached to the Complaint reveal that, except forthe denial of showers forthe period

February 14 through February 18, 2014,22 White did not properly exhaust his administrative

remedies throughthe third level. In the Complaint,White contends that he should be excused

from the administrative remedies requirements of the PLRA because he was prevented from

doing so through no fault of his own.

23 Other than his bare conclusory allegation, the only

specific allegation in the body of the Complaint supporting his contention refers to a single

grievance inwhichhe contends ina conclusorymannerthat he was denied adequate time and

access to the law library.

20 See Id. at 215 (noting that if the allegations show that relief is barred by the

applicable statute of limitations, anaffirmative defense,the complaintis subject to dismissal).

21 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b)(“Unless otherwise stated inthese regulations,

all appeals are subject to a third level of review, as described in section 3084.7, before

administrative remedies are deemed exhausted. All lower level reviews are subject to

modificationat the third level ofreview.”). Section 3084.7 provides for three levels ofreview,

the third level conducted by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, or by a designated representative.

22 Docket 1, pp. 116–17.

23

Inconnectionwiththat allegationWhite refers to Exhibit 6 [Docket 1-1, pp. 181–87].

Exhibit 6, consisting of copies of CDCR 22 Inmate/Parolee Request for Interview, Item or

Service, refers to two appeals initiated on May 21, 2014, that were returned to him,

resubmitted, and againreturned. Contraryto White’s contentions, the Exhibit itself shows that

the appeals he contends were returned unprocessed are indicated as being underreview at

the first level [Docket 1-1, p. 186].

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 7

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 13
Denial of Showers/Hot Water. It is settled in this Circuit that prisoners must be

provided with either hot water or periodic showers.24 The fatal flaw in White’s Complaint is

that during the time frame he alleges he was denied hot waterinhis cell(December 21, 2013,

throughFebruary8,2014)he does not allege he was denied access to a shower. Onthe other

hand, on the days that he alleges he was denied a shower White does not allege he did not

have hot water in his cell. As presently drafted the Complaint does not plead a viable cause

of action under the EighthAmendment withrespect to the claimed denial of showers and hot

water. Consequently, those claims must be dismissed. The Court further notes thatitis highly

unlikely that White can truthfully plead a plausible Eighth Amendment claim.

Access to LawLibrary. White alleges that he was denied access to the law libraryon

two dates:May23 and July3, 2014. What is conspicuouslylacking is anyallegationthat White

suffered anyinjuryas a result of the claimed denial of access onthose two dates, i.e., suffered

some adverse actionorthathe was precluded from exercising some constitutionallyprotected

right. That claim too must be dismissed.

Access to the Courts. White makes a somewhat vague and conclusoryallegationthat

he was insome manner denied access to the courts.The Court starts withthe propositionthat

the right of access to the courts is a well established fundamental constitutional right.

25

It is,

however, also well established that there must be some injury and that requirement is not

24Toussaintv. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1108 n.29 (9thCir. 1986) (overruled in part

on other grounds, Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)).

25 Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 828 (1977).

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 8

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 13
satisfied byjust anytype of frustrated legal claim.

26 Access to the courts in the Constitutional

contextis the opportunityto prepare, serve, and file suchpleadings and documents necessary

or appropriate to commence or prosecute court proceedings affecting one’s personal

liberty.

27 Access to court claims are of two types—a forward-looking claim, i.e., one in which

the actionseeks to remove impediments or road blocks to future litigation, and a backwardlooking claim,i.e.,one inwhichspecific litigationended poorly,orcould nothave commenced,

or could have produced a result subsequently unobtainable.28 As presently constituted,

White’s access to the courts claim falls far short of pleading a viable cause of actionand must

be dismissed. The Court also notes that it is highly unlikely that White can truthfully plead a

viable claim of denial of access to the courts.

Denial of Day Room/Telephone. While the denial of dayroom and telephone access

may raise to the level of a constitutional violation,

29

the sporadic incidents alleged by White

simply do not rise to that level. Moreover,White has not alleged anyspecific injuryas a result

of the alleged incidents. Accordingly, those claims will also be dismissed.

26 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996).

27

Id. at 384 (Thomas, J. concurring); Philips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1075–76 (9th

Cir. 2007);Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159–60 (9th

Cir. 2003).

28 See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413–14 (2002).

29 See, e.g., Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1123–24 (9th Cir. 2008)

(day room); Carlo v. City of Chino, 105 F.3d 493, 499–500 (9thCir. 1997) (denial of access

to a telephone).

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 9

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 13
Opening of Legal Mail. On two separate occasions White’s legal mail was opened

by mail room staff.

30

It is clearly established that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel

precludes prisonofficials fromopening and reading bothincoming and outgoing mailbetween

an inmate and counsel.

31

Inthis case there is no allegation that prison officials read White’s

legal mail. More importantly, however, is the nature of the relief that this Court may grant.

White has not alleged anyactual injuryfrom what appears to be aninadvertent opening of his

incoming legal mail. To be entitled to injunctive relief, White “must demonstrate that he is

realistically threatened by a repetition of [the violation].”

32

A threat ofrepetitioncanbe shownatleast two ways. First, a plaintiff mayshow

that the defendant had, at the time of the injury, a written policy, and that the

injury stems from that policy. Second, the plaintiff may demonstrate that the

harm is part of a pattern of officially sanctioned . . . behavior, violative of the

plaintiffs’ [federal] rights.33

As presentlydrafted, White’s Complaint does not allege facts entitling him to injunctive relief.

Accordingly, White’s claim based upon the opening of his legal mail must be dismissed.

Inadequate Ventilation. White alleges that the cell in which he was confined lacked

adequate heat and ventilation.34 Specifically, in his Complaint White refers to four dates:

30 Exhibit 8 establishes that at least onone occasionWhite’s incoming legal mail was

opened. [Docket 1-1, p. 87]

31 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 577 (1974); Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903,

909–11 (9th Cir. 2014).

32 Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at911 (alterations and emphasis inthe original)(citations and

internal quotation marks omitted).

33

Id. (emphasis in the original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

34 White has attached to his Complaint over 50 pages of his medical records [Exhibit

10, Docket 1-1, pp. 112-166]. The Court notes that White includes numerous documents

(continued...)

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 10

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 10 of 13
April 15, 2014, April 18, 2014, August 28, 2014, and September 30, 2014. With respect to

April 15 and 18, White does not allege that he suffered any injury. The record attached to the

Complaint indicates that White was treated for vomiting, migraines, nausea, and bodyaches

allegedly as a result of fumes emanating from the ventilation system on August 29 and

September15, 2014.35 OnSeptember 30, 2014, White againsuffered choking and coughing

as a result of the noxious fumes, for which he sought medical attention.

36

It is evident from the face of the Complaint and the attachments that, withrespect to the

August 28 and September 30 injuries, assuming without deciding he is otherwise entitled to

relief, White has not exhausted his administrative remedies.37 Accordingly, that claim must

also be dismissed.

Other Matters: The Court has reviewed the other matters raised by White in his

Complaint and finds that, as presently pleaded, they do not plead facts sufficient to warrant

the granting the relief requested, or any relief at all.

34

(...continued)

unrelated to the claims asserted in the Complaint, e.g., dental records, treatment for back

pain, a knee injury, and pelvic pain. Attaching documents unrelated to the complaint, which

requires searching through the documents for relevant material, places an additional

unwarranted burden on the defendants and the Court to determine which, if any, of those

documents support the claims made.

35 Health Care Services Request Forms dated: August 29, 2014 [Docket 1-1, pp.

153–55]; and September 15, 2014 [Docket 1-1, p. 152].

36 Health Care Services Request Form dated September 30, 2014 [Docket 1-1, pp.

143, 163].

37 The Court notes that, given the time that lapsed betweenAugust 28 and the date of

his Complaint, December 8, 2014, it is highly unlikely that White could have exhausted his

administrative remedies.

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 11

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 11 of 13
IV. ORDER

The Complaint onfile hereinis herebyDISMISSED without prejudice. While it maybe

unlikelythat White cantruthfullyplead entitlement to reliefinthis Court, dismissal without leave

to amend at this pointis unwarranted.38 Accordingly,Plaintiff is granted throughand including

June 12, 2015, within which to file an amended complaint consistent with this Dismissal

Order.

In amending his complaint, White:

1. Must state each cause of action separately including: the date; a brief statement

of the facts underlying the claim (who, what, and when); the injurysuffered or damage incurred

as a result of the wrongful act(s); and identifying the state official(s) responsible.

2. Should, as to eachclaim, have attached thereto as exhibits all documents showing

proper exhaustion of his administrative remedies, or a statement of facts showing that he

should be excused from the requirement that he exhaust his administrative remedies.

3. Should not include any facts or attachments that are not relevant to his claims.

4. May not include legal argument or citation to authority.

38 See Hartman v. California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1141, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”);

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130–31 (9thCir. 2000) (en banc) (explaining that leave to

amend should be given unless amendment would be futile).

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 12

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 12 of 13
Plaintiffis further warnedthatfailure to comply with this Order may resultinhis

amendedcomplaint being stricken andthe matter dismissedwithoutfurther notice to

him.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2015.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL ORDER

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 13

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 13 of 13