Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01665-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Hansen
Plaintiff
Philip Nkwocha
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN HANSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NKWOCHA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01665 DLB

ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE 

CLAIM AND DISMISSING 

REMAINING CLAIMS

Plaintiff Steven Hansen (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 2, 2015.

On February 10, 2016, the Court screened his complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on February 29, 2016. He names California 

Correctional Institution (“CCI”) Custody Officer Philip Nkwocha as the sole Defendant.1

A. SCREENING STANDARD

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). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on November 16, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-01665-DAD-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 5
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

“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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CCI, where the events at issue occurred.

Plaintiff alleges that he is a white “MAC REP.” ECF No. 7, at 3. While conducting state 

authorized tournaments in his housing unit, Defendant observed him speaking to a black prisoner. 

Plaintiff was called to the office, where Defendant began yelling at him, saying that he had no 

business talking to a black inmate because Plaintiff was white. Defendant ordered Plaintiff to 

Case 1:15-cv-01665-DAD-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 5
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

return to his cell, or he would “tear up [his] cell,” while threateningly holding his can of pepper 

spray. ECF No. 7, at 3. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s partner, Correctional Officer Nelson, attempted to 

reason with Defendant. It failed, however, and Nelson told Plaintiff, “give him a wake-up call...I 

give up trying to talk to him.” ECF No. 7, at 4. 

When Plaintiff filed his appeal, Defendant refused to process it. Then, when Defendant 

became aware of the appeal, he tried to intimidate Plaintiff into dropping the appeal by telling 

Plaintiff that the appeal “will never go anywhere because he’s a correctional officer,” that no one 

will believe Plaintiff because he’s an inmate, and that it will only cause Plaintiff problems. ECF 

No. 7, at 4. Defendant also told Plaintiff that he would see to it that Plaintiff was removed from 

MAC status, “which has happened.” ECF No. 7, at 4.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges a denial of his right to associate and retaliation 

in violation of the First Amendment, and a violation of due process.

C. DISCUSSION

1. First Amendment- Freedom of Association

“An inmate does not retain rights inconsistent with proper incarceration,” and “freedom of 

association is among the rights least compatible with incarceration.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 

U.S. 126, 131, 123 S.Ct. 2162, 2167 (2003). Accordingly, “[s]ome curtailment of that freedom 

must be expected in the prison context.” Id.

The Constitution protects the right to associate in two distinct senses: (1) intimate 

association, i.e., the right to maintain private relationships free of state intrusion, and (2) 

expressive association, e.g., “the right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities 

protected by the First Amendment- speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and 

the exercise of religion.” Phillips v. Bramucci, 2015 WL 4452142, at *6 (N.D.Cal. 2015) (citing 

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his right to freedom of association when he

ordered Plaintiff to stop talking to another inmate while conducting “state authorized 

tournaments.” ECF No. 7, at 3. Given that the freedom of association is among the least 

Case 1:15-cv-01665-DAD-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 5
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

compatible with incarceration, the Court will not find that the Constitution protects Plaintiff’s 

right to associate in this instance. See Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2013).

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim for violation of his right to associate. This claim 

cannot be cured by amendment.

2. First Amendment- Retaliation

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); accord 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 retaliated against him because of his appeal. At this stage, 

the allegations are sufficient to state a claim under the First Amendment for retaliation.2

To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for talking to another 

inmate by threatening him with pepper spray, he does not state a claim. As explained above, 

Plaintiff’s interaction with the other inmate is not protected First Amendment conduct.

3. Due Process Clause

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations 

of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish 

that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 

(2005).

///

 

2

Plaintiff will be instructed on service by separate order.

Case 1:15-cv-01665-DAD-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and 

therefore he cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or 

resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. 

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant for refusing to process his appeal. This 

claim cannot be cured by amendment.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff states a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment and this action SHALL 

PROCEED on this basis. He does not state any other cognizable claims, and the remaining claims 

are therefore DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01665-DAD-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 Page 5 of 5