Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00629/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00629-3/pdf.json

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

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 2013 JA -9 Pr1 I: 51 

3 Clt " UR >OUT II. ' " , . - C', LlfOill 

4 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 SIXTO Q, NAVARETTE, 

BOP #20463-298 12 

Plaintiff, 13 

14 

vs. 

16 

17 PIONEER MEDICAL CENTER; U.S. 

MARSHAL'S SERVICE; FEDERAL 18 BUREAU OF PRISON; DR. MARK 

WHYTE; U,S. MARSHAL MARK; 19 VICTORVILLE FCI OF BOP; DOCTOR 

SALVADOR VILLALON; MLP 

CASTILLO; MACHIMO, 

21 Defendants. 

22 

23 

24 

26 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Civil No, 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

ORDER: 

(1) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

DEFENDANTS WHYTE, PIONEER 

MEDICAL CENTER, U.S. 

MARSHAL'S SERVICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISON AND 

VICTORVILLE FCI OF B.O.P. 

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b); 

AND 

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFECT SERVICE OF SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO 

FED.R.Clv.P.4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

27 On March 12,2012, Plaintiff, Sixto Q. Navarette, a federal inmate currently incarcerated 

28 at Victorville Federal Corrections Institution located in Adelanto, California, filed a civil rights 

-1­ 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/09/13 Page 1 of 6
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21, 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.5]. 

The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his 

Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). [ECF No.7.] Plaintiff 

was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies ofpleading 

identified by the Court. Id. On August 16,2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint 

("FAC"). [ECF No.8.] On September 6,2012, Defendant Whyte prematurely filed a Motion 

and Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint before the Court could 

conduct the required sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). [ECF Nos. 10, 

11.] The Court denied Defendant Whyte's motion to dismiss as moot in light ofthe Court~ s 

dismissal of the entire First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A(b). [ECF No. 13.] On November 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended 

Complaint ("SAC"). [ECF No. 15.] 

II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A 

A. Standard 

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") 

obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like 

Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or 

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, 

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." 

See 28 U .S.C. §§ 1915( e )(2) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte 

dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails 

to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane) (§ 

1915(e)(2»; Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A). 

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.c. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte 

dismissal ofonly frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is 

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

-2- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/09/13 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 

324(1989). However28U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)and 19l5Anowmandatethatthecourtreviewing 

an IFP or prisoner's suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of 

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.Clv.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 ("[S]ection 

19l5( e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim."); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). 

"[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff." Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) 

"parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's 

duty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 

839 F.2d 621,623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

A. Claims brought pursuant to § 1983 

Once again, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants Pioneers Memorial Hospital and 

Defendant Whyte liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 imposes two essential proof 

requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the 

conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or 

immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 

Parrattv. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 

474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygoodv. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1 985)(en banc). 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold either ofthese Defendants liable pursuant to § 1983, 

his Second Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts sufficient to show that a private entity 

or their employee acted "under color ofstate law." Franklin, 312 F.3d at 444; see also Kirtley 

v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) ("While generally not applicable to private 

parties, a § 1983 action can lie against a private party" only if he is alleged to be "a willful 

participant in joint action with the State or its agents.") (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

-3- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/09/13 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 

The Court infonned Plaintiff in all ofthe previous Orders that he must clarifY whether 

he was incarcerated at the time he was provided medical care by Defendant Whyte or Pioneer 

Medical Center. It is now clear from the allegations in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 

that he was not incarcerated at these times and therefore, neither Defendant Whyte or Pioneer 

Medical Center can be held liable for § 1983 purposes because neither ofthese Defendants acted 

"under color of state law." Franklin, 312 F.3d at 444. 

Accordingly, Defendant Whyte and Defendant Pioneer Medical Center are dismissed 

from this action with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

B. Eighth Amendment claims 

Because Plaintiff claims violation ofhis civil rights by federal actors, the Court construes 

the remaining claims as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Fed Narcotics Agents, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens established that "compensable injury to a constitutionally protected 

interest [by federal officials alleged to have acted under color offederal law ] could be vindicated 

by a suit for damages invoking the general federal question jurisdiction of the federal courts 

[pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331]." Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). "Actions under 

§ 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 

1983 by a federal actor under Bivens," Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991). 

To state a private cause of action under Bivens, Plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was 

committed by a federal actor. Id.; Karim-Panahiv. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839F.2d621, 624 

(9th Cir. 1988). Bivens provides that "federal courts have the inherent authority to award 

damages against federal officials to compensate plaintiffs for violations oftheir constitutional 

rights." Western Center for Journalism v. CederqUist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000). 

However, a Bivens action may only be brought against the responsible federal official in his or 

her individual capacity. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348,355 (9th Cir. 1988). Bivens 

does not authorize a suit against the government or its agencies for monetary relief. FDIC v. 

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,486 (1994); Thomas-Lazearv. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988); 

Daly- Murphy, 837 F.2d at 355. 

-4- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/09/13 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 

Thus, the Court dismisses Defendants Federal Bureau ofPrisons, U.S. Marshal's Service 

and Victorville FCI ofBOP from this action as a Bivens action against these federal agencies is 

not authorized. FDIC, 510 U.S. at 486. 

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint is now sufficiently 

pleaded as to Defendants U.S. Marshal Mark, Villalon, Castillo and Machimo to survive the sua 

sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915( e )(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore, the Court will 

direct U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] 

cases."); FED.R.Clv.P. 4(c)(3) ("[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States 

marshal or deputy marshal ... ifthe plaintiff is authorized to proceed informapauperis under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915."). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that "the sua sponte screening and dismissal 

procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that 

[a defendant] may choose to bring." Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 

2007). 

III. 	 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants Dr. Mark Whyte, Pioneer Medical Center, U.S. Marshal's Service, 

Federal Bureau of Prison and Victorville FCI of B.O.P. are DISMISSED from this action 

without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The Clerk of Court 

is directed to terminate these Defendants from the docket. 

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint 

[ECF No.9] upon Defendants U.S. Marshal Mark, Villalon, Castillo and Machimo, and shall 

forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. 

In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiffwith a copy ofthis Order, the Court's July 10,2012 

Order granting Plaintiffleave to proceed IFP [ECF No.7], and copies ofhis Second Amended 

Complaint and the summons for purposes ofserving each Defendant. Upon receipt ofthis "IFP 

Package," Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as 

possible, and to return them to the U.S. Marshal according to the instructions provided by the 

-5-	 12cv0629 WQH (OHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/09/13 Page 5 of 6
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a 

copy of the Second Amended Complaint and summons upon each Defendant as directed by 

Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.Clv.P. 4(c)(3). 

3. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiffs Second Amended 

Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted 

to "waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or 

other correctional facility under section 1983," once the Court has conducted its sua sponte 

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e )(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary 

determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a "reasonable 

opportunity to prevail on the merits," Defendants are required to respond). 

4. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by 

counsel, upon Defendants' counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document 

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be 

filed with the Clerk ofthe Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy 

ofany document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service. 

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to 

include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

I ~ 

DATED: _~~L-~d~J"",----__ United States D· lct Judge 

-6- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/09/13 Page 6 of 6