Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03087/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICARDO MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

E. GITOVA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 19-03087 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against employees at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), where he was 

previously incarcerated. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to 

attempt to state sufficient facts to support a First Amendment retaliation claim. Dkt. No. 6. 

Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 8, hereinafter “Am. Compl.” 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

Case 5:19-cv-03087-EJD Document 9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff claims that on November 28, 2016, he went to the medication line at 

Building D-6 of SVSP where Defendant Nurse E. Gitova was working behind a glass 

counter. Am. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff then showed Defendant Gitova the inside of his coffee 

cup for her to make sure that he was taking his medication, and accidentally spilled coffee 

on the countertop. Id. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff claims that his Fourteenth 

Amendment right was violated by Defendant Gitova. Id. Plaintiff makes no mention of a 

previously alleged First Amendment claim from the original complaint. 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against 

governmental deprivations of “life, liberty or property,” as those words have been 

interpreted and given meaning over the life of our republic, without due process of law. 

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71 (1972); Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 

795 (9th Cir. 1995). Interests that are procedurally protected by the Due Process Clause 

may arise from two sources – the Due Process Clause itself and laws of the states. See 

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). In the prison context, these interests are 

generally ones pertaining to liberty. Changes in conditions so severe as to affect the 

sentence imposed in an unexpected manner implicate the Due Process Clause itself, 

whether or not they are authorized by state law. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 

Case 5:19-cv-03087-EJD Document 9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(1995) (citing Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 493 (1980) (transfer to mental hospital), and 

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990) (involuntary administration of 

psychotropic drugs)). A state may not impose such changes without complying with 

minimum requirements of procedural due process. See id. at 484. Once a protected 

interest is established, either through the Due Process Clause itself or through a state 

statute or regulation, the court must determine what process is due before the interest may 

be taken away. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224-25. 

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts by which the Court can liberally construe a 

Fourteenth Amendment violation by Defendant Gitova. There are no facts to indicate that 

Plaintiff was deprived of a fundamental interest under the Due Process clause or an interest 

created by state law, or that he suffered a change in conditions of confinement that was so 

severe as to affect the sentence imposed in an unexpected manner. Lastly, there are no 

facts indicating that Defendant Gitova violated Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process 

before depriving Plaintiff of a protected interest. Accordingly, the amended complaint 

fails to state a cognizable claim and must be dismissed. The dismissal is without leave to 

amend because Plaintiff was already afforded one opportunity to amend and the Court 

finds no good cause to grant him another opportunity where he appears to be merely 

fishing for a viable cause of action based on the same set of facts which, liberally 

construed, fail to support any constitutional claim. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 

821, 830 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend particularly 

broad where plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice 

for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

/// 

Case 5:19-cv-03087-EJD Document 9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.19\03087Martinez_dism(ftsac) 

3/27/2020

Case 5:19-cv-03087-EJD Document 9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 4