Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD PIERCE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-CV-01567-LJO-NEW(DLB)-P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED

(Doc. 23)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 

A. Procedural History

 William Jackson Kitchens (“plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on December 5, 2005, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California. The case was transferred to the Fresno Division and received

on December 9, 2005. 

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s original complaint filed December 5, 2005,

against defendants Sheriff Richard Pierce, Assistant Sheriff Margaret Mimms, Lieutenant Gary

Johnson, and Trans. Corp., for violation of plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to protect him by housing him with criminal inmates, and

that defendants failed to provide constitutionally adequate conditions of detention for a civil

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 31 Filed 06/26/07 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 Defendant Pierce has not yet been served. Defendant Trans. Corp. filed an answer to the complaint on 1

March 26, 2007.

2

detainee. On March 23, 2007, defendants Mimms and Johnson (hereinafter “defendants”) filed a

motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On 1

April 20, 2007, plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion.

B. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 

1. Legal Standard

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the claim or claims stated in the

complaint. “The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v.

California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint

in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in

the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869

(1969). 

The federal system is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307

F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions,

with limited exceptions,” none of which apply to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. Discovery and

summary judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed facts” and “dispose of

unmeritorious claims.” Id. at 512. “The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail

but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear

on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.” 

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 31 Filed 06/26/07 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

Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,

236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not

be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)

(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). “Federal Rule 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short

and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Specific facts are not

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell

Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)).

2. Discussion

Pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, the court has a statutory duty to screen

complaints in cases such as this and dismiss any claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

In the instant case, the court conducted a preliminary screening of the complaint on

November 22, 2006. Under the facts as alleged in the complaint, the court found that plaintiff

adequately stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim for defendants’ failure to protect

him by housing him with criminal inmates, and for defendants’ failure to provide constitutionally

adequate conditions of detention for a civil detainee. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Given this initial screening,

it is unlikely the court will favor dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. 

a. Linkage Between Actions of Defendants and Injury to Plaintiff

Defendants claim that plaintiff failed to establish any actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. 

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 31 Filed 06/26/07 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

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the

defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. 

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional

right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant

with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

At the pleading stage, however, plaintiff’s allegations that defendants Mimms and

Johnson were responsible for implementation of policies, practices, and procedures which, when

followed, resulted in denial of privileges and risks to plaintiff’s safety, are sufficient to satisfy

Rule 8(a). Plaintiff’s presumption that defendants were aware or should have been aware of

plaintiff’s treatment does not fail to satisfy the plain requirement of § 1983, but instead suffices

to put defendants on notice of the claim against them for failure to act as they were required to

do. Because it is not clear to the court that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

consistent with the allegations, the complaint may not be dismissed on this basis.

b. Claims Stemming from Denial of Law Library Access and from the

Strip Search

Defendants argue that plaintiff fails to state claims for denial of access to the courts and

stemming from a strip search. Plaintiff alleged that defendants denied him law library privileges

to which he was entitled, and that he was subject to an unclothed body search and a visual body

cavity search, without his consent, upon his arrival at the jail. These two incidents appear to the

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 31 Filed 06/26/07 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

court to be examples of plaintiff’s treatment at the jail about which he complains, rather than

distinct legal claims. Plaintiff alleges that he was treated improperly under laws governing the

rights of civil detainees by being housed with penal commitment inmates, placed in disciplinary

isolation, and denied privileges such as adequate exercise, access to religious services, and access

to the law library. Plaintiff also alleges that his personal mail was opened, that he was not

allowed to make telephone calls, and that he was not given access to psychiatric treatment at the

jail. Plaintiff makes reference to all of these incidents together as examples of his claim that

defendants improperly housed him at the jail. Given that plaintiff’s allegations of the acts against

him appear to be examples of his mistreatment at the jail, and not separate legal claims, plaintiff

is not required to support separate claims stemming from denial of access to the courts and the

strip search. Therefore, the complaint may not be dismissed on the basis of his failure to do so.

c. Declaratory Relief Under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act

Defendants argue that plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief under the LantermanPetris-Short Act, Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 5000 et seq. (1998) (“the Act”) because the Act is

inapplicable to plaintiff. While defendants’ argument may be found to have merit, the court finds

it premature to resolve the issue at this early stage of the proceedings. The court notes that

defendants have not set forth any binding authority that the Act is not applicable to plaintiff. At

the notice pleading stage, the court is disinclined to foreclose plaintiff’s ability to pursue a claim

without the support of clear authority. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief shall not

be dismissed on this basis.

d. Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief

In addition to money damages, plaintiff seeks an order for defendants to revise and amend

policies, practices, and procedures at the Fresno County Jail to comply with laws concerning the

care, housing, treatment, and transportation of civil detainees. Plaintiff’s claim for equitable

relief arises from allegations of mistreatment by defendants while plaintiff was housed at the jail

to attend a hearing. Defendants argue that plaintiff has not met the burden of establishing that he

suffered any real injury at the jail or that he will be subject to the same threat again. At any point

plaintiff seeks an injunction, plaintiff must meet the applicable standard before an injunction will

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 31 Filed 06/26/07 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

be granted.

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the

threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or

controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983)

(citations omitted); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 

“Abstract injury is not enough.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665. “[P]laintiff must

show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the

result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and

immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The

key issue is whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to suffer future injury.’” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126

(quoting Lyons at 105, 1667). When a government agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the

widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118,

1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)),

and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these considerations are, in anything, strengthened

because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128. “[A]ny injunctive relief awarded

must avoid unnecessary disruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course of proceeding.’” Id. at

1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669, 679 (1974)). 

Defendants argue that plaintiff did not show any likelihood that he will be subjected to

improper treatment at the jail in the future. The complaint arises from plaintiff’s transportation

to and confinement at the Fresno County Jail for his attendance at a hearing to determine the

status of his civil commitment. As it appears that such hearings will be held periodically, the

court declines to limit plaintiff’s ability to seek relief on claims that are not fully developed at

this beginning stage. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief shall not be dismissed at

this juncture.

3. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed March 23, 2007, be DENIED as follows:

(1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against them for failure to allege

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 31 Filed 06/26/07 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

sufficient linkage be denied with prejudice;

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims based on denial of access

to the courts and the strip search be denied with prejudice, on the ground

that they are not separate, stand alone legal claims; and

(3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and

injunctive relief be denied, without prejudice.

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

Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendation, any

party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 31 Filed 06/26/07 Page 7 of 7