Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01582-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH M. LEWIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1582 GEB PAN P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee challenging the conditions of his confinement

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 30, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

for failure to state a claim and explained to plaintiff the requirements of an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

Having reviewed the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the

court finds it fails to state a claim for relief.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified

defendant deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United

States while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A local

government is subject to liability for constitutional torts committed by its officials according to

an official policy, practice, or custom. Monell v. N.Y. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

Case 2:05-cv-01582-GEB-PAN Document 14 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 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

2

690-91 (1978). Plaintiff must allege an individual with final policy making authority acted

pursuant to an official policy or custom. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 694; City of St. Louis v.

Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) (plurality); Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986).

A pretrial detainee challenging the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions

implicating only the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law must

allege facts showing the conditions or restrictions amount to punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441

U.S. 520, 534-35 (1979). Conditions or restrictions that are reasonably related to a legitimate

governmental objective do not amount to punishment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 539. Security is a

legitimate governmental interest. Id. at 540; Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 1918 (9th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff claims that defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment when, immediately following plaintiff’s arrest for murder, attempted murder and

arson, they placed him, without a hearing, in the disciplinary isolation section even though he had

not violated jail rules. Plaintiff alleges that despite requesting release to the general population

he continuously has been held in disciplinary isolation pursuant to an official policy or custom of

exhibiting deliberate indifference to detainee’s rights. When pressed for an explanation,

defendant Hambright stated plaintiff was there to ensure the safety of himself and others because

one of plaintiff’s alleged victims was an employee of the Solano County Sheriff’s Department.

Assuming plaintiff adequately has pled the existence of a policy or custom that

would make defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he concedes he was placed in disciplinary

isolation and held there for security reasons.

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that action be dismissed

for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000)

(indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file amended complaint

unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a claim).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

Case 2:05-cv-01582-GEB-PAN Document 14 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 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

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections. 

The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

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).

DATED: March 24, 2006.

\004

\lewi1582.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-01582-GEB-PAN Document 14 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 3