Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00538/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00538-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEAN A. SCHWARTZMILLER, et al.,

Booking # 15746082,

Plaintiff,

vs.

K. RODRIGUEZ, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[ECF No. 2]

AND

2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR 

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

AND § 1915A(b)

Plaintiff, Dean Schwartzmiller, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California has filed a civil 

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1) and a Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). Because 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), the Court grants 

him leave to proceed without full prepayment of the civil filing fees, but dismisses his 

Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b).

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
2

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

A. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to 

proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” 

Bruce v. Samuels, __ S. Ct. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (U.S. 2016); Williams v. Paramo, 

775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately 

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th 

Cir. 2002).

Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 

“certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 

6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified 

trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 

monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly 

balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner 

has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having 

custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the 

preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards 

those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

 

1

 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 

fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court 

Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014). The additional $50 administrative fee does 

not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
3

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his inmate 

trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. His 

trust account statement indicates he has insufficient funds from which to pay a partial 

initial filing fee at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event 

shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or 

criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to 

pay the initial partial filing fee.”); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 

(finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a 

prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay . . . due to the lack of funds available 

to him when payment is ordered.”). 

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and directs the Secretary 

for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to collect the 

entire $350 balance of the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and forward them to 

the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). See id.

B. Legal Standards for Screening Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his Complaint requires a preAnswer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these 

statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 

it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 

who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 

2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that 

the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” 

Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford 

Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
4

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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 standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 

applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.

1. Plaintiff’s allegations

Plaintiff has filed a forty eight (48) page Complaint in which he names thirty-seven 

(37) defendants and attaches nearly twenty (20) pages of exhibits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 

alleges constitutional violations by RJD prison officials, as well as several news agencies, 

dating back to 2006.

2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the “deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 

Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person 

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Long v. Cty. of 

Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

3. Representation of other parties

Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of Plaintiff Harmon whom he 

describes as his “heir apparent.” See Compl. at 6. However, because Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se, he has no authority to represent the legal interest of any other party. 

See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995); C.E. Pope Equity Trust 

v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a) (“Every 

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
5

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of 

record in the attorney’s original name, or if the party is not represented by an attorney, 

shall be signed by the party.”). Therefore, Plaintiff Harmon is DISMISSED from this 

action. 

4. Rule 8

In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in order to state a claim for 

relief in a pleading it must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the 

court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) & (2). In addition, “the pleading 

standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands 

more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

Plaintiff is also admonished that he must comply with Local Rule 8.2 which 

requires, in part, that “[c]omplaints by prisoners under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, must be legibly written or typewritten on forms supplied by the court” and 

“[a]dditional pages not to exceed fifteen (15) in number may be included with the court 

approved form complaint, provided the form is completely filled ion to the extent 

applicable.” S.D. CivLr 8.2(a). Here, Plaintiff has failed to use the Court’s form 

complaint and has filed a forty eight (48) page Complaint, which well exceeds the 

number of pages permitted by the local rule.

5. Private parties

Plaintiff claims that Defendant John Larson, whom he identifies as an “NBC News 

Correspondent,” is responsible for producing a television program entitled “The Worst 

Predator” and identifies Plaintiff as the “worst predator of our time” in 2006. (Compl. at 

9-10.) As a result of this program, Plaintiff claims that Larson “exposed Plaintiff to 

hatred, contempt, and ridicule, causing him to be assaulted, shunned and/or avoided.” 

(Id. at 10.) Plaintiff seeks $250,000,000 in damages from these Defendants. (Id. at 36.)

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
6

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

However, neither Larson nor his purported employers, Defendants NBC News and 

MSNBC, are alleged to be “person[s] acting under color of state law.” See West; 487 U.S. 

at 48; Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (The 

party charged with a constitutional deprivation under § 1983 must be a person who may 

fairly be said to be a governmental actor) (citation and quotations omitted). 

The Constitution protects individual rights only from government action and not 

from private action; it is only when the government is responsible for the specific conduct 

of which the plaintiff complains that individual constitutional rights are implicated. 

Single Moms, Inc. v. Mont. Power Co., 331 F.3d 743, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2003). Generally, 

private parties do not act under color of state law. See Price v. Hawai’i, 939 F.2d 702, 

707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Section “1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no 

matter how discriminatory or wrong.” Sutton, 193 F.3d at 835 (citing Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. 

Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 

see also Ouzts v. Md. Nat’l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 551 (9th Cir.1974) (a purely private 

actor may be liable for his misconduct in state court, but his conduct is not actionable 

under Section 1983, regardless of how egregious).

In order for private conduct to constitute governmental action, “something more” 

must be alleged. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 939 (1982) (“Action 

by a private party pursuant to [§ 1983], without something more, [i]s not sufficient to 

justify a characterization of that party as a ‘state actor.’”). Courts have used four different 

factors or tests to identify what constitutes “something more”: (1) public function, (2) 

joint action, (3) governmental compulsion or coercion, and (4) governmental nexus. See 

id.; Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1997); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. 

Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1486 (9th Cir. 1995); Gorenc v. Salt River Project Agric. 

Improvement and Power Dist., 869 F.2d 503, 506 (9th Cir. 1989).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to plausibly show that any of the 

private parties or organizations he has named as Defendants performed any public 

function traditionally reserved to the state, acted as willful participants in joint action

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
7

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

with government agents, was compelled or coerced, or had any connection whatsoever 

with the state, when they allegedly injured Plaintiff. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Lugar, 

457 U.S. at 939.

6. Statute of Limitations

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that this program on NBC, which he alleges has caused 

him harm, was produced and aired on television in 2006. (See Compl. at 9.) “A claim 

may be dismissed [for failing to state a claim] on the ground that it is barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations only when ‘the running of the statute is apparent on the 

face of the complaint.’” Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 

F.3d 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 

997 (9th Cir. 2006)). “‘A complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt 

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the 

claim.’” Id. (quoting Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir. 1995)); 

see also Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1276-77 (9th Cir. 1993) (where the 

running of the statute of limitations is apparent on the face of a complaint, dismissal for 

failure to state a claim is proper, so long as Plaintiff is provided an opportunity to amend 

in order to allege facts which, if proved, might support tolling); see also Tahoe-Sierra 

Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 788 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(court may raise the defense of statute of limitations sua sponte), overruled on other 

grounds by Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 389 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Hughes v. 

Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1163 (11th Cir. 2003) (upholding sua sponte dismissal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of prisoner’s time-barred complaint). 

Because section 1983 contains no specific statute of limitation, federal courts apply 

the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Jones v. Blanas, 393 

F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004); 

Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999). Before 2003, California’s statute of 

limitations was one year. Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. Effective January 1, 2003, the 

limitations period was extended to two. Id. (citing CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 335.1). The 

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
8

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

law of the forum state also governs tolling. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394 (2007) 

(citing Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 538-39 (1989)); Jones, 393 F.3d at 927 (noting 

that in actions where the federal court borrows the state statute of limitation, the federal 

court also borrows all applicable provisions for tolling the limitations period found in 

state law). 

Under California law, the statute of limitations for prisoners serving less than a life 

sentence is tolled for two years. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 352.1(a); Johnson v. California, 

207 F.3d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds, 543 U.S. 499 (2005). 

Accordingly, the effective statute of limitations for most California prisoners is three 

years for claims accruing before January 1, 2003 (one year limitations period plus two 

year statutory tolling), and four years for claims accruing thereafter (two year limitations 

period plus two years statutory tolling). In addition, the limitations period for prisoners is 

tolled while the “prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion process.” Brown v. Valoff,

422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005).

Unlike the length of the limitations period, however, “the accrual date of a § 1983 

cause of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law.” 

Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388; Hardin, 490 U.S. at 543-44 (federal law governs when a 

§ 1983 cause of action accrues). “Under the traditional rule of accrual ... the tort cause of 

action accrues, and the statute of limitation begins to run, when the wrongful act or

omission results in damages.” Wallace, 549 U.S. at 391. Put another way, “[u]nder 

federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury 

which is the basis of the action.” Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955; TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 

F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, Plaintiff’s claims first accrued in 2006 when the program first aired on 

August 11, 2006. (See Compl. at 9.) Thus, assuming Plaintiff is not serving a life 

sentence, he is entitled to 2 years of statutory tolling pursuant to CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE

§ 352.1(a). Johnson, 207 F.3d at 654; see also Jones, 393 F.3d at 928 n.5 (noting that 

“California courts have read out if the statute the qualification that the period of 

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
9

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

incarceration must be ‘for a term less than for life’ in order for a prisoner to qualify for 

tolling.”). Consequently, based on the face of Plaintiff’s own pleading, it is clear 

Plaintiff’s claims fall far outside California’s two-year statute of limitations, even 

including all presumed periods of tolling provided by statute. See Wallace, 591 U.S. at 

391; Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955; CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 335.1 (tolling statute of 

limitations “for a maximum of 2 years” during a prisoner’s incarceration).

Finally, Plaintiff’s claims could be considered timely if, in his Complaint, he 

alleges facts sufficient to show the limitations period may be equitably tolled. See 

Cervantes, 5 F.3d at 1276-77. Generally, federal courts also apply the forum state’s law 

regarding equitable tolling. Fink, 192 F.3d at 914; Bacon v. City of Los Angeles, 843 F.2d 

372, 374 (9th Cir.1988). Under California law, however, Plaintiff must meet three 

conditions to equitably toll the statute of limitations: (1) he must have diligently pursued 

his claim; (2) his situation must be the product of forces beyond his control; and (3) 

Defendants must not be prejudiced by the application of equitable tolling. See Hull v. 

Central Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1328, 1335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994); 

Addison v. State of California, 21 Cal.3d 313, 316-17 (Cal. 1978); Fink, 192 F.3d at 916. 

As currently pleaded, however, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts 

which, if proved, would support any plausible claim for equitable tolling. See Cervantes, 

5 F.3d at 1277; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 

1993) (plaintiff carries the burden to plead facts which would give rise to equitable 

tolling); see also Kleinhammer v. City of Paso Robles, 385 Fed. Appx. 642, 643 (9th Cir. 

2010).

Accordingly, the Court finds the running of the statute of limitations is apparent on 

the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore he has failed to state a claim upon which 

section 1983 relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); § 1915A(b)(1).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
10

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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. Eighth Amendment claims

Plaintiff alleges that he is a disabled prisoner and Defendants have violated his 

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment because he has been “forced to remain 

in a non-ADA equipped cell.” (Compl. at 37-38.) Plaintiff further claims that 

Defendants have “unilaterally” rejected the “Armstrong Remedial Plan” which provides 

for assistance for prisoners who are deemed “disabled.” (Id. at 38.) Plaintiff also claims 

that Defendant Walker “discontinued” his pain medication. (Id. at 40.)

These are claims that Plaintiff previously raised in Schwartzmiller, et al. v. Brown, 

et al., S.D. Civil Case No. 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS. A court “‘may take notice of 

proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those 

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 

1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 

2002)). A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous if it “merely repeats pending or 

previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 

1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations 

omitted). Therefore, because Plaintiff already filed an action with the identical claims 

presented in the instant action against the same Defendants in Schwartzmiller, et al. v. 

Brown, et al., S.D. Civil Case No. 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS, the Court must dismiss the 

duplicative claims brought in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) & 

1915A(b). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. 

Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing 

whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of 

action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), 

overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).2

 

2

 To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to the Armstrong Remedial Plan, he must pursue 

those claims through the consent decree or through class counsel. See Crayton v. Terhune, No. C 98-

4386, 2002 WL 31093590 (Sept. 17, 2002).

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 13
11

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

8. Fourteenth Amendment claim

Plaintiff claims that he was “falsely accused and punished by Defendant K. 

Rodriquez’ allegation of sexual disorderly conduct on May 24, 2013.” (Compl. at 41.) 

Plaintiff claims he was placed in administrative segregation (“ad-seg”) for a period of 

forty-six (46) days as a result of this charge. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants 

“provided an alleged due process hearing” to find Plaintiff guilty of the disciplinary 

charge and as a result he lost sixty (60) days of “goodtime credits.” (Id. at 42.) Plaintiff 

seeks $5,000,000 in damages for “such unconstitutional conduct.” 

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners against deprivation or restraint of “a 

protected liberty interest” and “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation 

to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 

2003) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Although the level of the hardship must be determined in a case-by-case 

determination, courts look to:

1) whether the challenged condition ‘mirrored those conditions imposed upon 

inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody,’ and thus 

comported with the prison’s discretionary authority; 2) the duration of the 

condition, and the degree of restraint imposed; and 3) whether the state’s 

action will invariably affect the duration of the prisoner’s sentence.

Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 861 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486-87). Only if an inmate has 

alleged facts sufficient to show a protected liberty interest does the court next consider 

“whether the procedures used to deprive that liberty satisfied Due Process.” Ramirez, 334 

F.3d at 860.

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege facts which show that the 

disciplinary punishment he faced subjected him to any “atypical and significant hardship 

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id.; Sandin, 515 U.S. at 584. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 13
12

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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

Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no “factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, that Defendant’s actions 

“presented a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of [Plaintiff’s] indeterminate 

sentence,” or caused him to suffer an “atypical” or “significant hardship.” Sandin, 515 

U.S. at 584-85; see also Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1088-89.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a Fourteenth 

Amendment due process claim upon which relief may be granted.

9. Leave to Amend

A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint to state a claim 

unless it is absolutely clear the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by 

amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (noting leave to amend should be granted when 

a complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “if it appears at all possible that the 

plaintiff can correct the defect”). Therefore, while the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint

fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted, it will provide him a chance to 

fix the pleading deficiencies discussed in this Order. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)).

C. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, the Court: 

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

(ECF No. 2).

2. DIRECTS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by garnishing 

monthly payments from his account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the 

preceding month’s income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each 

time the amount in the account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL 

PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 

ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 13
13

3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL

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. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Scott 

Kernan, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.

4. DISMISSES Plaintiff Harmon from this action and directs the Clerk of 

Court to terminate this party from the Court’s docket.

5. DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A(b), and GRANTS him forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in 

which to file an Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his 

original pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Amended 

Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. 

v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 

pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 

amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

6. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail to Plaintiff, together with this Order, a 

blank copy of the Court’s form “Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983” for his use in amending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2017

HON.JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00538-JAH-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 13