Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Samuels
Defendant
Jesse Washington
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JESSE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMUELS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01404-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

ECF NO. 15

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) 

DAYS

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jesse Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this 

action on August 27, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint on 

November 8, 2013. (ECF No. 13.) This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint filed on November 22, 2013. (ECF No. 15.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

states some cognizable claims.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/28/14 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

2

II.

SCREENING

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

III.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

The events described in Plaintiff’s complaint took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated 

at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California (“KVSP”). Plaintiff names R. Samuels 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/28/14 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

3

(correctional officer) as defendant in this action (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Samuels harassed Plaintiff. (First Am. Compl. 5.1) In 

October 2010, Plaintiff received a vendor package that was processed by Samuels at the 

“Receiving and Release” department. (First Am. Compl. 5-6.) Plaintiff’s package included food 

items, which Samuels tossed through the Receiving and Release window and onto the ground. 

(First Am. Compl. 6.) Plaintiff complained about Samuels’ actions and threatened to file an 

administrative grievance against Samuels and his co-worker. (First Am. Compl. 6.) Samuels 

and the co-worker then ordered Plaintiff to submit to a clothed body search. (First Am. Compl. 

6.) Samuels then escorted Plaintiff to his cell and subjected Plaintiff to an unclothed body 

search, while simultaneously making racial and sexual remarks toward Plaintiff. (First Am. 

Compl. 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against as an African American Muslim 

because no other white or Hispanic prisoners were subjected to such searches or harassed. (First 

Am. Compl. 7.)

Plaintiff was allowed to retrieve his package, but contends that a bag of Keebler’s soft 

batch chocolate chip cookies were missing. (First Am. Compl. 7-8.) Samuels told Plaintiff to 

contact the company that sent the package. (First Am. Compl. 8.) After writing a letter to the 

company, the company instructed Plaintiff to have Samuels contact the company to confirm the 

issue. (First Am. Compl. 8.) Samuels told Plaintiff that he would confirm the issue with the 

company. (First Am. Compl. 8-9.) However, Samuels later told Plaintiff that he “declined” to 

contact the company. (First Am. Compl. 9.) Plaintiff contends that Samuels refused to help 

Plaintiff with the cookie issue out of retaliation against a grievance Plaintiff filed against 

Samuels for his harassing conduct. (First Am. Compl. 9.)

On January 17, 2011, Samuels threatened to rescind Plaintiff’s medical chrono for a 

lower bunk and orthopedic shoes after Plaintiff had played a flag football game with other 

prisoners in the exercise yard. (First Am. Compl. 9-10.) Plaintiff also contends that Samuels 

harassed Plaintiff during a medical examination that same day. (First Am. Compl. 10.) Samuels 

 

1 Citations to Plaintiff’s complaint will refer to the page numbers as electronically docketed rather than the page 

numbers that appear on the complaint itself.

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/28/14 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

4

then generated a false Rules Violation Report accusing Plaintiff of threatening to harm him. 

(First Am. Compl. 11.)

IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Equal Protection Clause Claim

“Prisoners are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

from invidious discrimination based on race.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated to be treated alike. 

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 (1985); 

Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace 

v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 

2008). An equal protection claim may be established by showing that Defendants intentionally 

discriminated against Plaintiff based on his membership in a protected class, Hartmann, 707 F.3d 

at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 

583 F.3d 690, 702-03 (9th Cir. 2009); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), or that similarly situated 

individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate 

state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 601-02, 128 S.Ct. 

2146 (2008); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech; 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073 (2000); Lazy 

Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of 

Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support a plausible equal protection claim. 

Plaintiff does not allege facts that support the conclusion that he was subjected to body searches 

and harassment because of his race, religion or membership in any other class. Plaintiff does not 

allege any facts that suggest why Defendant chose to harass Plaintiff. It is worth noting that 

Plaintiff does not allege that other African American or Muslim inmates were harassed by 

Defendant, which would have supported the inference of an improper race-based on religionbased motive on Defendant’s part. Further, Plaintiff’s allegation that white and Hispanic inmates 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/28/14 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

5

were never subjected to clothed or unclothed body searches is implausible. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant subjected Plaintiff to the clothed and unclothed body 

searches after Plaintiff threatened to file an administrative grievance against Defendant for his 

mishandling of Plaintiff’s quarterly package. The obvious inference is that Defendant retaliated 

against Plaintiff for threatening to file a grievance. There are no facts that support the inference 

that Defendant took adverse action against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race or religion. 

Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims under the Equal Protection Clause.

B. Retaliation Claims

Plaintiff contends that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his rights 

under the First Amendment. Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment 

rights to speech or to petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Silva v. Di 

Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 

1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 

F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) 

chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 

2005); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva, 658 at 1104; Brodheim 

v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant issued Plaintiff a false Rules Violation Report in 

retaliation against Plaintiff’s administrative grievances. Plaintiff states a cognizable retaliation 

claim against Defendant.

C. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Generally, leave to amend a dismissed complaint should be granted if it appears at all 

possible that the plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). However, leave to amend may be denied when a plaintiff was 

previously notified of the deficiencies in his claims but did not cure them. See Chodos v. West 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/28/14 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

6

Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, Plaintiff was previously informed of the deficiencies in his non-cognizable claims 

and his First Amended Complaint failed to cure them. Accordingly, the Court will recommend 

dismissal of those claims without leave to amend.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

states a cognizable claim against Defendant R. Samuels for retaliation against Plaintiff’s exercise 

of his rights under the First Amendment. However, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does 

not state any other cognizable claims. The Court finds that leave to amend should be denied 

because Plaintiff’s non-cognizable claims cannot be cured by granting further leave to amend.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action proceed solely on 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant R. Samuels and that all other 

claims be DISMISSED, without leave to amend.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/28/14 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

7

waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/28/14 Page 7 of 7