Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00987/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00987-4/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN ALDANA, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0987 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

CAN BE GRANTED

vs.

JAMES YATES, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. After plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed by this court for failure to state claim,

plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 9, 2007. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00987-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 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

2

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. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff once again alleges that he has been wrongfully ascribed an “R” suffix custody

designation by a Pleasant Valley State Prison classification committee. Plaintiff contends the committee

relied on a probation report which indicated that the charges were dismissed. Plaintiff seeks to have the

“R” suffix custody designation removed. 

1. Due Process

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty without due process

of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of action for

deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty interest

for which the protection is sought. Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause itself or

from state law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983). 

The Due Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in a particular

classification status. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88, n.9 (1976). The existence of a liberty

interest created by state law is determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995). Liberty interests created by state law are generally limited to

freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. 

Case 1:06-cv-00987-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Under certain circumstances, labeling a prisoner with a particular classification may implicate

a liberty interest subject to the protections of due process. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827 (9th Cir.

1997) (“[T]he stigmatizing consequences of the attachment of the ‘sex offender’ label coupled with the

subjection of the targeted inmate to a mandatory treatment program whose successful completion is a

precondition for parole eligibility create the kind of deprivations of liberty that require procedural

protections.”). 

In this instance, plaintiff has not alleged any facts that establish the existence of a liberty interest

with respect to the assignment of the “R” suffix designation. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the

classification, he has lost the ability to participate in job training and/or vocational programs. Plaintiff

also alleges the designation will affect his parole duration and his level of control. As plaintiff was

previously advised, the assignment of an “R” suffix and the resulting increase in custody status and loss

of privileges simply do not “impose[] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484; Neal at 830; Cooper v. Garcia, 55 F.Supp.2d

1090, 1101 (S.D. Cal. 1999); Johnson v. Gomez, No. C95-20717 RMW, 1996 WL 107275, at *2-5

(N.D. Cal. 1996); Brooks v. McGrath, No. C 95-3390 SI, 1995 WL 733675, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for

violation of the Due Process Clause. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s amend complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

may be granted against any of the defendants under section 1983. The court therefore HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that the amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. In doing so, the court does not recommend that leave to amend be granted as plaintiff

was already given the opportunity to do so and was unable to cure the deficiencies identified by the court

in the previous order. 

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 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Case 1:06-cv-00987-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00987-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 10/09/07 Page 4 of 4