Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01276-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE , et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01276-OWW-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff James Reynolds (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee for this action. Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2006 after his original complaint was dismissed with

leave to amend. 

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 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). 

Case 1:05-cv-01276-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 10/03/07 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

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

C. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in this action allegedly occurred at California Correctional Institution

(“CCI”), where plaintiff is incarcerated. Plaintiff names Captain Jensen and Officers Cowan and

Chapman as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that upon his arrival at CCI he was a designated

“single cell status” inmate. On August 23, 2006, the classification committee recommended that

plaintiff be relocated to either California State Prison at Soledad or the Los Angeles County State

Prison, which are both designed to house classified maximum security prisoners. Plaintiff

alleges that based on defendants misrepresentations, staff approved plaintiff for alternative

placement at Calipatria State Prison, which plaintiff describes as “gang infested.” Plaintiff

alleges that the alternative locations are of identical security level but unlike Calipatria State

Case 1:05-cv-01276-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 10/03/07 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

Prison, are less turbulent. 

Plaintiff further alleges that on October 24, 2006, he was summoned before the

classification committee where his documented enemy concerns were rejected, his disability was

rejected and he was removed from single cell status.

D. Discussion

Prisoners have no constitutional right to a particular classification status, see Moody v.

Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88, n.9 (1976), and prisoners have no constitutional right to be incarcerated

at a particular correctional facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976). Further,

prisoners have no constitutional right to employment. Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077

(9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, absent a motive that implicates constitutional concerns, plaintiff’s

change in custody status, which led to the loss of his job, and his transfer to a less favorable

facility do not give rise to a claim for relief. Vignolo at 1077-78 (inmate’s alleged removal from

his prison job in retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected activity may state a

claim for relief). Plaintiff has alleged no facts that indicate that a motive that would implicate

constitutional concerns was behind the changes. Accordingly, plaintiff’s allegations fail to give

rise to any claims for relief under section 1983. 

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint, like the original complaint, fails to

state a cognizable claim for relief against defendants. The Court therefore recommends that the

complaint be dismissed in its entirety. In doing so, the Court does not recommend that leave to

amend be granted as plaintiff was already given the opportunity to amend the allegations and was

unable to cure the deficiencies. 

E. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain a claim upon which

relief may be granted against any of the defendants under section 1983. Plaintiff was provided

with the opportunity to amend to cure these deficiencies but was unable to do so. Accordingly,

the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety as follows. 

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

Case 1:05-cv-01276-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 10/03/07 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

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 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 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01276-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 10/03/07 Page 4 of 4