Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01352/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01352-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH ZAVALA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRIS CHRONES, et al.,

Defendants.

/

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01352-DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS

AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 6)

Order Following Screening

Plaintiff Keith Zavala, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 3, 2009. On August 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed

his first amended civil rights complaint. The Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint on

December 1, 2009, and found that it states a cognizable claim against Defendant Martin for violation

of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims. The Court ordered that

Plaintiff either file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified, or submit written notice

of his willingness to proceed only against Defendant Martin. On December 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed

notice of his intent to not amend his complaint and to proceed only against Defendant Martin. The

Court thus issues the following Order.

I. Screening Requirement

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

1

Case 1:09-cv-01352-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 7
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

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 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at

1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

conclusion are not. Id. at 1949.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, brings

this action for violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendmentsof the United StatesConstitution.

A. Eighth Amendment Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on June 19, 2007, he attended an Institution Classification Committee

(“ICC”) hearing before Defendants Chrones, Smith, Kays and Chandler. At the time of the hearing

Plaintiff was housed in the Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”). During the hearing, an

officer from KVSP Internal Gang Investigations (“KVSP-IGI”) presented evidence that Plaintiff

would be assaulted if released from ASU. The information was based on a letter written by a prison

inmate and associate of the Mexican Mafia gang. Plaintiff contends that Defendants Chrones,

Smith, Kays and Chandler elected to release Plaintiff from ASU to Facility B. On September 15,

2007, Plaintiff was attacked by two inmates and stabbed approximately twenty-two times. 

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006).

2

Case 1:09-cv-01352-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 7
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

Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners

with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty to

take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413

F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by

other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation where prison officials know

of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer at 847; Hearns at

1040.

1. Defendants Chrones, Smith, Kays, Chandler and Soto

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Chrones, Smith, Kays and Chandler acted with deliberate

indifference in releasing Plaintiff into Facility B despite knowledge of a threat made against him.

Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Soto, Captain of Facility B, also acted with deliberate

indifference by failing to take any action to protect Plaintiff after receiving a copy of the June 19,

2007 Classification Chrono prepared by the ICC (“Chrono”).

Plaintiff attaches and incorporates by reference a copy of the Chrono to his First Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 6, FAC, pp. 38, 113.) The Chrono notes that Plaintiff was informed of the threat

made against him. Id. At the hearing, Plaintiffstated that he did not believe that he was in trouble. 

Id. Plaintiff also agreed with the Committee’srecommendation that he be released to FacilityB. Id.

Plaintiff’s exhibit shows that the decision to release him to Facility B was discussed by the

Committee members and agreed to by Plaintiff. It also disproves his allegations that Defendants

Chrones, Smith, Kays, and Chandler acted with deliberate indifference in releasing Plaintiff, and that

Defendant Soto acted with deliberate indifference by not taking action once he received a copy ofthe

Chrono. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Chrones, Smith, Kays,

Chandler or Soto.

2. Defendant Martin

Plaintiffallegesthat the September 15, 2007, attack occurred because Defendant Correctional

Officer Martin had informed prison inmates, including members of the Mexican Mafia gang, that

Plaintiff was a “snitch”, a “J-cat”, and a “rat”, in an effort to have Plaintiff killed. 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01352-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/06/10 Page 3 of 7
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

Plaintiff states a viable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Martin.

3. Defendants True and Figueroa

Upon being informed in August 2007 of Defendant Martin’s actions, Plaintiff drafted and

submitted a 602 prison grievance contending that Defendant Martin was attempting to have him

killed. Plaintiff additionally drafted a CDC 602 / Citizens Complaint (“Citizen’s Complaint”), also

alleging that Defendant Martinwas attempting to have himkilled. Plaintiff contendsthat the Citizen’s

Complaint was taken from his cell, among other items, during a cellsearch conducted on September

4, 2007, by Defendants True and Figueroa, apparently before Plaintiff could submit it.

Plaintiff contendsthat DefendantsTrue and Figueroa knew or should have known, by reading

the contents of the Citizen’s Complaint they confiscated, that Plaintiff’s life was in danger. Plaintiff

contends that Defendants failed to reasonably respond. Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not

return the Citizen’s Complaint to him or submit it to the Appeals Coordinator.

Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant True and Figueroa mayhave read the Citizen’sComplaint

confiscated during a cell search along with other items, and then failed to act, is insufficient to state

a plausible claim for relief. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S.

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of

meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

B. Fourteenth Amendment Claim

1. Defendants True and Figueroa

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants True and Figueroa obstructed his ability to file a Citizen’s

Complaint, and also his right to receive and keep his mail in his cell.

Inmates have a fundamental constitutionalright of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2177 (1996). The right is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas

petitions, and civilrights actions. Id. at 354, 2181-82. Claims for denial of access to the courts may

arise fromthe frustration or hindrance of “a litigating opportunity yet to be gained” (forward-looking

access claim) or from the loss of a meritorious suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking

claim). Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2185-87 (2002). For

backward-looking claims such as that at issue here, plaintiff “must show: 1) the loss of a

4

Case 1:09-cv-01352-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/06/10 Page 4 of 7
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

‘nonfrivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim; 2) the official acts frustrating the litigation; and 3) a

remedy that may be awarded as recompense but that is not otherwise available in a future suit.” 

Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007).

The first element requires that plaintiffshow he suffered an “actual injury” by being shut out

of court. Harbury 536 U.S. at 415, 121 S.Ct. at 2187; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351, 116 S.Ct. at 2180;

Phillips, 477 F.3d at 1076. The second element requires that plaintiff show defendant proximately

caused the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights, “[t]he touchstone . . . [for which] is foreseeability.” 

Phillips, 477 at 1077. Finally, the third element requires that plaintiff show he has no other remedy

than the relief available via this suit for denial of access to the courts. Id. at 1078-79. Plaintiff has

not demonstrated any actual injury to litigation.

With respect to Plaintiff’s allegation that he is being deprived of a right to keep his

correspondence in his cell, the Due ProcessClause protects prisoners frombeing deprived of property

without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a

protected interest in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974).

However, while anauthorized, intentionaldeprivationofpropertyis actionable under the Due Process

Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush

Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v.Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), “[a]n unauthorized

intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the

procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful

postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533.

Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factsfor the court to determine whether the deprivationwas

authorized or unauthorized. Further, in the event that the destruction was authorized and therefore

actionable under section 1983, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that he was deprived of

due process. As long as Plaintiff was provided with process, prison officials may deprive him of his

property.

2. Defendants Castro and Ostrander

Finally, Plaintiff allegesthat Defendants Castro and Ostrander violated due process by ruling

in favor of Defendant Martin when resolving Plaintiff’s 602 Staff Complaint. Plaintiff contends that

5

Case 1:09-cv-01352-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/06/10 Page 5 of 7
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

their actions also amount to deliberate indifference.

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under

color ofstate law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rightssecured by the Constitution or federal

law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “[A prison] grievance

procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” 

Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8,

10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no liberty

interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance procedure); Massey

v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure confers no liberty

interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Actions in reviewing

prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability under a section 1983 action.

Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Castro and Ostrander, whether alleged as an Eighth or

Fourteenth Amendment claim, fail as a matter of law. Their involvement in investigating Plaintiff’s

allegations and resolving his appeal, approximately one and a half years after the incident, does not

provide a basis for liability. There is no constitutional violation for ruling against Plaintiff on his

inmate appeal.

C. Declaratory Relief

In addition to money damages, Plaintiffseeks a declaration that his rights were violated. “A

declaratory judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of

judicial discretion, exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village,

333 U.S. 426, 431 (1948). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful

purpose in clarifying and settling the legalrelationsin issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford

relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” United States v. Washington, 759

F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). In the event that this action reaches trial and the jury returns a

verdict in favor of Plaintiff, that verdict will be a finding that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were

violated. Accordingly, a declaration that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights is unnecessary, and

this action shall proceed as one for money damages only.

6

Case 1:09-cv-01352-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/06/10 Page 6 of 7
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

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against Defendant Martin for violation of the Eighth

Amendment. However, Plaintiff fails to state a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim, and his

allegations do not support claims against Defendants Chrones, Smith, Kays, Chandler, Soto, True,

Figueroa, Castro or Ostrander. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file a second amended

complaint to cure the deficiencies identified, but filed notice that he does not wish to amend and is

willing to proceed against Defendant Martin only.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Martin for violation ofthe

Eighth Amendment; and

2. Defendants Chrones, Smith, Kays, Chandler, Soto, True, Figueroa, Castro and

Ostrander are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:09-cv-01352-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/06/10 Page 7 of 7