Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00122-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yvonne Beuster
Defendant
Audrey King
Defendant
Debi Phillips
Defendant
Gregory Ell Shehee
Plaintiff
Melica Villalobos
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

YVONNE BEUSTER, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on January 27, 2014, is 

currently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Screening Requirement

“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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must 

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on

Case 1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 7
2

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

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Allegations in Complaint

Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Yvonne Beuster; (2) Debi Phillips; (3) 

Melica Villalobos; and (4) Audrey King. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant have falsely claimed that he is not an indigent patient, 

have denied him indigent patient status and have denied him the ability to photocopy and send 

documents to the court in a timely manner. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants “obstruct 

justice, block the Plaintiff’s legal work and ability to respond to court required filings and block 

the Plaintiff’s filings in which the court’s rules and procedures require that Plaintiff’s responses 

be filed according to court imposed time limits.” (ECF No. 1, p. 2.) Plaintiff also alleges that 

Defendants’ underground regulations, underground administrative directives and schemes to 

obstruct justice have caused him irreparable harm and obstructed multiple court cases. 

Plaintiff asserts that he informed Defendants on thirty different occasions that obstruction 

of justice is a criminal offense and demanded the return of his legal papers. Sgt. Maylin told 

Plaintiff that all 34 of his legal envelopes had been shredded or destroyed because of Plaintiff 

having brought suit against Coalinga State Hospital. Sgt. Maylin reportedly stated that the 

hospital was not going to allow him to walk into court with the kind of evidence that he had 

against them.

Plaintiff further alleges that Coalinga State Hospital sends civil detainees to Fresno 

Superior Court on false criminal charges that are fabricated by Coalinga State Hospital 

employees. Plaintiff contends that Coalinga State Hospital uses falsified records from security 

guards, psychiatric technicians, and psychiatric technician students. Plaintiff asserts that serious 

assaults with great bodily injury have routinely been covered up by Coalinga State Hospital 

employees. Hospital employees have been directed to obstruct civil detainees whenever they 

bring a suit that might reveal the hospital’s criminal conduct. Plaintiff alleges that in the 

immediate case, the hospital directed the trust office to force Plaintiff, under duress, to sign a 

contract which interfered with his right to photocopy and present evidence to the courts. Plaintiff 

Case 1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 7
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

27

28

also asserts that he was charged for relevant case citations, which are to be provided to indigent 

litigants for free. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from the named defendants. 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8

and 18 and fails to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his 

complaint to state a claim. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the applicable pleading and 

legal standards. Plaintiff should amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith, are 

cognizable. Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not add new claims to this action. 

A. Pleading Standards

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but does not contain a plain statement of his claims 

showing that he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff’s complaint is disjointed, difficult to understand, 

and filled with conclusory statements. Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to clearly state 

what happened, when it happened and who was involved. Further, Plaintiff’s allegations 

regarding falsified records and assaults are generalized and not directly linked to any defendants 

or any specific incident. 

2. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Case 1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 7
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

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be 

subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party 

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between 

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See 

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] 

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to 

perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint 

is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978).

Here, Plaintiff fails to properly link the individual defendants to a constitutional violation. 

Plaintiff may not simply lump all defendants together in his complaint. Plaintiff will be given 

leave to cure this deficiency. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must allege what each 

individual defendant did or did not do that resulted in a violation of his rights.

3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18

Plaintiff is raising numerous claims against different defendants based on different events 

at Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a 

single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 

2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against 

multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or 

series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire 

Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the 

defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review the other claims to 

determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of multiple claims 

against the same party.

Case 1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 4 of 7
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

If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, Plaintiff shall choose which claims he wishes 

to pursue in this action. If Plaintiff does not do so and his amended complaint again sets forth 

unrelated claims which violate joinder rules, the Court will dismiss the claims it finds to be 

improperly joined. 

B. Civil Detainees Legal Standards 

Civil detainees “are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement 

than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 

457 U.S. 307, 322, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). However, court decisions that define 

the constitutional rights of prisoners can be relied upon to establish a floor for the constitutional 

rights of those who are civilly detained as sexually violent predators (“SVP”). Padilla v. Yoo, 

678 F.3d 748, 759 (9th Cir.2012); Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 989 n. 7 (9th Cir.2007), 

vacated and remanded on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1256, 129 S.Ct. 2431, 174 L.Ed.2d 226 

(2009). 

1. Access to Courts

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the right to access the courts when he was denied 

access to photocopies as an indigent inmate. Civil detainees have a protected right of access to 

the courts. Semeneck v. Ahlin, 2010 WL 4738065, *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2010). To state a 

claim, a detainee alleging a violation of his right of access to the courts must demonstrate that he 

has suffered an “actual injury.” Id., citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50, 116 S.Ct. 

2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Plaintiff fails to provide specific allegations that Defendants 

interfered with his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim or that he suffered any actual 

injury. Plaintiff’s generalized allegations, which includes a paragraph listing each action he has 

prosecuted or is prosecuting, is not sufficient to demonstrate actual injury. Plaintiff will be given 

leave to cure this deficiency to the extent that he is able to do so in good faith. 

2. Destruction of Legal Property

Plaintiff alleges that his envelopes were destroyed in retaliation for his lawsuit against 

Coalinga State Hospital. 

Case 1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 5 of 7
6

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

While an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due 

Process Clause, neither a negligent nor intentional unauthorized deprivation of property is 

actionable if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available for the loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 

468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 

(9th Cir.1984). Plaintiff alleges that his envelopes were destroyed in retaliation. Whether the 

cause of the property loss or damage was intentional and unauthorized or negligent, Due Process 

is satisfied if there is a meaningful postdeprivation remedy available to Plaintiff. Hudson, 468 

U.S. at 533. Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy available under California law. 

Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–17 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810–895). 

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for the loss of his property.

3. State Law Claims

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to pursue state law claims, he may not pursue a state law tort 

claim unless he has complied with California’s Government Claims Act. Compliance must be 

affirmatively alleged, and compliance with the hospital’s complaint process does not suffice to 

exhaust state law tort claims. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 208–09 (Cal.

2007); State v. Superior Court of Kings Cnty, (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 (Cal. 2004).

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 8 and 18 and fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted against any 

defendant. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he will be given an opportunity to amend his 

complaint to the extent that he can do so in good faith. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his 

amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 

Case 1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 6 of 7
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

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00122-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 7 of 7