Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01088-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY RAE MALDONADO, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, 

et al., 

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01088-AWI-EPG-PC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 21.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Billy Rae Maldonado (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an 

original Complaint commencing this action on July 5, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court1

previously found on a screening order that Plaintiff failed to state a claim and gave Plaintiff 

leave to amend. 

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint claims that correctional officer defendant Ramirez 

grabbed Plaintiff‟s buttocks and then felt Plaintiff‟s scrotum during a pat-down search. 

Defendant Ramirez also approached Plaintiff and puffed out his chest in a threatening manner.

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s amended complaint and finds that it fails to state a 

claim. In a prior order, the Court screened Plaintiff‟s initial complaint and found that it failed 

 

1 The prior sceening order was issued by Magistrate Judge Gary Austin.

Case 1:12-cv-01088-AWI-EPG Document 23 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

to state a claim because a pat-down search does not constitute unconstitutional conduct and 

Plaintiff‟s Complaint lacked facts indicating Defendant Ramirez had a culpable state of mind. 

The Court also initially dismissed related claims and supervisor defendants. This Court agrees 

with that conclusion as applied to similar facts presented in Plaintiff‟s amended complaint. 

Given that the Court has already given leave to amend and the issue appears to be one 

regarding the law rather than presentation of facts, the Court recommends dismissal of 

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint with prejudice. 

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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). 

A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff‟s allegations are 

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.‟” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

Case 1:12-cv-01088-AWI-EPG Document 23 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Id. 

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that while he was at Pleasant Valley State Prison, he was sexually 

assaulted by Defendant correctional officer M. Ramirez. While conducting a pat-down of 

Plaintiff, Defendant Ramirez squeezed the Plaintiff‟s buttocks. When Plaintiff asked why 

Defendant Ramirez was squeezing Plaintiff‟s buttocks, Defendant Ramirez became hostile and 

ordered Plaintiff to remain in a straddling position and Defendant Ramirez shoved his hand into 

Plaintiff‟s scrotum.

Following the incident, Defendant Ramirez stalked and intimidated Plaintiff. On 

November 28, 2011, Officer Ramirez approached Plaintiff and flexed his chest.

Plaintiff names as defendants Pleasant Valley State Prison, Officer Ramirez, Office of 

the Warden, and Hiring Authority. 

IV. FIRST SCREENING ORDER

The Court dismissed Plaintiff‟s initial complaint upon screening. (ECF No. 11.) The 

Court reviewed the law regarding sexual harassment. The Court held in relevant part:

Sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer is a violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. See Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms . . . prisoners [have a clearly 

established Eighth Amendment right] to be free from sexual abuse . . .”) see also

Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia Dep‟t. of Corr. v. District of 

Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634, 665 (D.C. 1994) (“[U]nsolicited touching of . . 

.prisoner‟s [genitalia] by prison employees are simply not part of the penalty 

that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society” (quoting Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

In evaluating a prisoner‟s claim, courts consider whether “the officials act[ed] 

with a sufficiently culpable state of mind” and if the alleged wrongdoing was 

objectively “harmful enough” to establish a constitutional violation.” Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). Here, the facts alleged indicate, at most, that 

Plaintiff was subjected to a single pat down search. That, in Plaintiff‟s view, the 

search was sexual, does not state a claim for relief. Plaintiff must allege facts 

that indicate that he was touched in a sexual manner. Plaintiff has failed to do 

so here.

(ECF No. 11, at p.3). 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01088-AWI-EPG Document 23 Filed 04/12/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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 also explained the law regarding retaliation and supervisory defendants and 

described how Plaintiff‟s Complaint failed to state claims for retaliation or against any of the 

supervisory defendants. 

V. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Court finds that Plaintiff‟s amended complaint fails to state a claim against any 

defendant. As the prior court found upon screening Plaintiff‟s initial complaint, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff‟s allegations amount to the fact that Officer Ramirez conducted a pat-down search 

that included feeling Plaintiff‟s scrotum, and that later Officer Ramirez puffed up his chest 

when speaking to Plaintiff. 

Prison officials are entitled to conduct pat-down searches, including in private parts of 

inmates‟ bodies. The alleged touching here occured in the context of a pat-down search. The 

facts also do not establish that the pat-down search was done “with a sufficiently culpable state 

of mind.” In other words, the facts do not indicate that Defendant Ramirez conducted the patdown search in order to sexually assault Plaintiff, or indeed that there was anything sexual 

about the conduct. 

It is clear that Plaintiff was greatly disturbed by these actions. Nevertheless, the Court 

does not find that this conduct states a claim for sexual harassment or any constitutional 

violation. 

VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable 

claim upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff 

leave to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the Court. Plaintiff has now filed two 

complaints without stating any claims upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. The 

Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, 

and therefore further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01088-AWI-EPG Document 23 Filed 04/12/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted; and

2. This dismissal count as a STRIKE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g).

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

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01088-AWI-EPG Document 23 Filed 04/12/16 Page 5 of 5