Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00428/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00428-6/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

MILES O. BONTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ESCUTIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00428-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND TO

MAKE CORRECTIONS, AND FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 27 and 16)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE AS TO FEDERAL CLAIMS

EXCEPT FOR ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT

OF LOSS OF TIME CREDITS, AND

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO STATE LAW

CLAIMS

(Doc. 25)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL COUNTS

AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Miles O. Bonty (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law. Plaintiff filed

this action on March 19, 2007. On June 18, 2007, the Magistrate Judge dismissed plaintiff’s

complaint with leave to amend for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted.

Between March 19, 2007, and August 2, 2007, plaintiff submitted three amended complaints.

Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s order of August 2, 2007, plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint

is currently pending before the Court. 

On June 27, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, and on

August 27, 2007, plaintiff filed another motion to amend to make corrections to his complaint. 

II. Screening Requirement

Case 1:07-cv-00428-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28

2

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

governmental entity or 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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies 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. However, while detailed allegations are not required, a plaintiff must set

forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief[,]” which “requires more than labels and conclusions,

and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Factual

allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Id. at 1965

(citations omitted). 

III. Plaintiff’s Federal Claims

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California. The

events at issue in this action allegedly occurred while plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State

///

Prison in Delano, California. Plaintiff alleges twelve separately enumerated claims for relief under

section 1983 and California tort law.

Plaintiff’s claims arise from a series of events which began on October 16, 2005, when thirtyCase 1:07-cv-00428-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28 Identified by plaintiff as causes of action one through three. 1

3

one inmates, including plaintiff, were forcibly extracted from the dining hall following a riot.

Plaintiff alleges that excessive force was used against him during the incident, and that he was

retained in segregation following the incident. Plaintiff alleges his rights under the First

Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were

violated.

A. Eighth Amendment Claims1

Plaintiff alleges that John Does 1 and 2 used physical force against him without provocation,

and John Does 3 and 4 used “treatment injurious” to him. (Doc. 25, 4th Amend. Comp., Court

Record pg. 16, lns. 3-12.) Plaintiff alleges that Does 1 and 2 escorted him out of the dining hall and

after his hands were restrained behind his back, walked him aggressively to the exit door and

slammed into the wall when walking outside. (Id., C.R. pg. 3.) Plaintiff alleges he was then pushed

to the ground, which caused injury to his chin and left knee. (Id.) Finally, plaintiff alleges that

defendants Lieutenant Reynoso and Sergeant Lascano failed to intervene while force was being used

against him. (Id., C.R. 16:14-23.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim that in extracting him from the dining hall

following a riot situation, the force used against him by Does 1 and 2 rose to the level of malicious

and sadistic. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). Further, there are no allegations in the

complaint supporting a claim against Does 3 and 4 for violation of plaintiff’s rights. Hydrick v.

Hunter, No. 03-56712, 2007 WL 2445998, *5 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2007). Accordingly, plaintiff fails

to state a claim against Does 1 through 4 for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because plaintiff

has not sufficiently alleged any underlying Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff’s allegation that

defendants Reynoso and Lascano failed to intervene does not support a claim for relief under section

///

1983. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989).

Case 1:07-cv-00428-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28

 Identified by plaintiff as cause of action four. 2

 Identified by plaintiff as causes of action five through twelve. 3

 Plaintiff ’s exhibits indicate plaintiff lost time credits as a result of being found guilty of a disciplinary 4

violation. (4th Amend. Comp., C.R. pg. 27.) While plaintiff does have a protected liberty interest in his time credits

already earned, any claim under section 1983 is barred until such time as the result of the disciplinary hearing is

invalidated and plaintiff’s credits are restored. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-2, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1248

(2005). Until such time, plaintiff’s sole avenue of relief is a petition for writ of habeas corpus or internal prison

procedures.

4

B. First Amendment Claims2

Plaintiff alleges that the failure of Kern Valley State Prison appeals coordinators to provide

an appeal log number caused a chilling effect on hisrights, in violation of the First Amendment. (4th

Amend. Comp., C.R. 17:3-10.) Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which support a claim that adverse

action was taken against him because of his exercise of a protected First Amendment right. Rhodes

v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). (4th Amend. Comp., C.R. 8:22-28 & 9:1-5.)

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable retaliation claim.

C. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims3

Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims all involve alleged violations of plaintiff’s right to due

process. Plaintiff has not identified or alleged any facts supporting the existence of a protected

liberty interest, and without the existence of a protected liberty interest, plaintiff’s due process claims

fail as a matter of law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 2393 (2005); Sandin v. Conner, 515 4

U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Myron v. Terhune, 476

F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007). (4th Amend. Comp., C.R. pgs. 9:6-15:12 & 17:12-21:7.) 

IV. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims

Plaintiff alleges claims under state law for assault and battery, violation of various penal code

sections, and fraud. Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the California Tort Claims Act, State

v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1245, 90 P.3d at 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d at 543; Mangold, 67 F.3d at

1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988), may not impose

liability on defendants for violation of penal code sections, see Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S.

281, 316 (1979), and has not alleged any facts supporting a fraud claim, Okun v. Morton, 250

Cal.Rptr. 220, 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). These deficiencies notwithstanding, however, plaintiff’s

Case 1:07-cv-00428-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28

 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) provides a 5

remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors, and the FTCA allows for a limited waiver of sovereign

immunity making the federal government liable for certain torts of federal employees acting within the scope of their

employment. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814 (1976).

5

fourth amended complaint does not state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section

1983, and plaintiff may not proceed in this action solely on state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a);

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Because the Court will not

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims in this situation, the claims shall

be dismissed, without prejudice. 

V. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend to Make Corrections

On August 27, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to correct his fourth amended

complaint. In plaintiff’s first claim for relief, he erroneously cited to Bivens and the Federal Tort

Claims Act (“FTCA”). It is unnecessary for plaintiff to make this correction. Plaintiff’s claims are 5

properly brought under section 1983 and the Court has treated the claims as such. Plaintiff may not

proceed against state prison employees under Bivens or the FTCA, and the Court has not treated

plaintiff’s claims as brought under either theory. 

Plaintiff also seeks to allege more specifically how defendants in supervisory positions were

liable for the deprivation of his rights. Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint does not state any

cognizable claims for relief under section 1983. Allowing plaintiff to add further allegations to

support claims for relief under a theory of supervisory liability would be futile given that there are

no underlying claims upon which to base the imposition of liability on supervisory personnel.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

VI. Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

On July 2, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction mandating that

appeals staff at Kern Valley State Prison respond to plaintiff’s appeals and address the issues raised

in the appeals.

///

Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth above, there

is no actual case or controversy before the Court, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101,

Case 1:07-cv-00428-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28

6

103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006),

plaintiff is no longer housed at Kern Valley State Prison, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th

Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517,

519 (9th Cir. 1991), and because problems with the appeals process do not support a claim for

violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the existence of problems do not afford a basis upon

which to issue an order remedying those problems, Ramirez, 334 at 860; Mann, 855 F.2d at 640;

Massey, 259 F.2d at 647. 

VII. Order

Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint does not state any claims upon which relief may be

granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously granted the opportunity to amend but did not

cure the deficiencies in his claims, and dismissal of this action is appropriate. Accordingly, for the

reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend to make corrections, filed August 27, 2007, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, filed July 2, 2007, is DENIED;

3. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety as follows:

a. With the exception of any claim arising out of the loss of time credits,

plaintiff’s section 1983 claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 

b. Any claim arising out of the loss of time credits is dismissed, without

prejudice, as barred by the habeas exhaustion rule; and

c. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed, without prejudice; and

4. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00428-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 6