Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06139/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06139-1/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

SERGIO A. RUBIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCRIBNER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6139 OWW SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION (Doc. 9.) 

 Sergio Rubio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

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

20, 2004, naming V. Yamamoto, Chief Deputy Warden, Correctional Counselor Schrednitz, C.

C. Monroe, R. Roper, A.R. Perez, D.T. Hawkes, and M. Hodges-Wilkins as Defendants.

This Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on March 9, 2006, and dismissed it with leave

to amend as Plaintiff had not linked any named Defendants to particular acts or omissions. The

Court also provided Plaintiff with the relevant law to help him properly frame his allegations. 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 12, 2006. 

A. SCREENING STANDARD

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

Case 1:04-cv-06139-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

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, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims 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). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, 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 plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The following summary is taken from this Court’s previous Order dismissing with leave

to amend as Plaintiff has not changed any of the “statement of facts” previously provided. 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 4, 2002, his cell was searched and a sheet of paper

containing names and addresses of family and friends was confiscated by Defendant Perez. 

Defendant Perez then authored a confidential chrono stating that Plaintiff was identified as

associating/communicating with validated members/associates of the Mexican Mafia Prison

Gang. During the month of November, Plaintiff states he was summoned to report to “work

change” by Defendant Perez and Correctional Guard Lunes. Plaintiff was instructed to strip

nude and was photographed. When Plaintiff asked why he was being photographed, he was

informed that it was for preparation of a gang validation packet. Plaintiff then inquired into the

basis of why such a packet was being prepared and was informed that this would be addressed by

Case 1:04-cv-06139-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 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

3

the Law Enforcement Liaison Unit (LIEU). Plaintiff states that he then inquired as to whether he

would get a disciplinary write up or hearing prior to his being validated and the response was no,

Plaintiff would have to use the inmate appeals process after being validated. 

Plaintiff states that on January 31, 2003, he was arrested by Defendants Monroe and R.

Roper and was escorted to the Administrative Segregation Unit. No information was provided to

him other than the CDC 114-D lock up order. Two weeks later, Plaintiff appeared before a

classification committee and asked why he was in segregation. He was informed that his

placement was based on a finding by Defendants A.R. Perez and D.T. Hawkes that Plaintiff was

a gang associate. Plaintiff was also informed that the hearing took place in Sacramento on

January 7, 2003, and that any questions related to his validation should be addressed to the LIEU. 

Plaintiff was then transferred to the Security Housing Unit. 

On April 23, 2003, Plaintiff made another appearance before the classification committee

in the SHU and was notified that all inmates validated as gang associates were held in the SHU

per departmental policy. When Plaintiff asked the basis of his validation, Defendant Yamamoto

reviewed his file and informed him that there were three pieces of evidence relied on for the

finding and that any inquiries relating to the reliability of the documents should be addressed to

the LIEU. Plaintiff states he was then given copies of documents disclosing the items relied on. 

On April 29,2003, Plaintiff appealed the decision to validate him as a gang associate

challenging the reliability of the documentation relied on for the validation. The appeal was

denied on June 13, 2003, by Defendant Roper. 

On June 28, 2003, Plaintiff appealed the response which was denied on September 23,

2003, by Defendant C.E. Monroe. Plaintiff submitted an appeal of this decision on October 10,

2003. Plaintiff’s appeal was denied on January 12, 2004, by Defendant V. Yamamoto. 

Plaintiff appealed again on February 8, 2004, challenging the reliability of the evidence

used to validate him as a gang member/associate. His appeal was denied on April 8, 2004. 

Plaintiff states he has remained in the SHU since the initial determination of his status as

a gang member and has gone before an Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”) every

sixth months but has been unsuccessful in discussing the basis of his validation. 

Case 1:04-cv-06139-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 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

4

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Linkage Requirement

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, the plaintiff must link each

named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

plaintiff’s federal rights.

As in the prior instance, Plaintiff again provides purely narrative form the story of what

he believes to be a violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff again fails to link any of the

named Defendants to an act or omission giving rise to the alleged violations. Instead, Plaintiff

sets out his constitutional claim for relief, “incorporates by reference” all of the facts previously

set forth in approximately twenty (20) pages of narrative and then makes a conclusory allegation

that the Defendants violated his rights. The Court informed Plaintiff previously that it would not

read his “story” and then try to determine which acts gave rise to the allegations of constitutional

deprivation. Despite being given the relevant information and law, Plaintiff again fails to link

any of the named Defendants in the manner he was instructed to by the Court. The Court has

now screened Plaintiff’s case twice and each Complaint filed consists of almost one hundred

pages and Plaintiff has been unable or unwilling to frame his allegations appropriately. Plaintiff

was informed previously that the Court cannot read Plaintiff’s story and formulate his claims for

Case 1:04-cv-06139-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 02/27/07 Page 4 of 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

5

relief by linking particular individuals to various acts or omissions. As stated in the prior order,

this is Plaintiff’s responsibility. 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff is either unwilling or unable to cure

the deficiencies outlined by the Court on prior occasions and thus, leave to amend should not be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9 Cir. 1987). th

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with a copy

of this Report 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 Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

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 (9 Cir. th

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06139-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 02/27/07 Page 5 of 5