Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111116_0015941.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-30 07:49:40
Document Index: 428912306

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 52', '§ 905', '§ 12132']

Plaintiff is a prisoner represented by counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint through counsel on September 22, 2011.
The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, finds that it states cognizable claims against defendants Shaid, Bailey, and Johnson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and against the State of California and the California Department of Corrections under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For the reasons stated below, the second and fourth causes of action in the second amended complaint--violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and Cal. Civ. Code 52.1 and 52 against the individual defendants-- not state cognizable claims. These causes of action will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend.
Section 1985 proscribes conspiracies to interfere with an individual's civil rights. To state a cause of action under section 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege: (1) a conspiracy, (2) to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, (3) an act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) a personal injury, property damage or deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. Gillispie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1980); Giffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102--03, (1971). But Section 1985 applies only where there is a racial or other class-based discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' actions. Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, plaintiff has alleged that defendants Shaid, Bailey, and Johnson conspired with Doe defendants to have plaintiff sexually assaulted in retaliation for his refusal to withdraw his administrative appeals against them. Plaintiff's complaint does not suggest that these defendants were motivated by racial or other class-based discriminatory animus.
In addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that a claim under § 1985 must allege specific facts to support the allegation that defendants conspired together. Karim--Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1988). A mere allegation of conspiracy without factual specificity is insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Id.; Sanchez v. City of Santa Anna, 936 F.2d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, plaintiff has not pled specific facts to support his allegations that the individual defendants entered into an agreement to have plaintiff transferred to Corcoran State Prison and sexually assaulted.
Plaintiff alleges violations of California Civil Code § 52.1 for the threats and intimidation alleged in the second amended complaint. Section 52.1 states, in relevant part:
(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured...
However, California's Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, no more than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2. A plaintiff must have presented a written claim and had the claim acted on or rejected before filing suit. Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.1995). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act. Id. Here, plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the Tort Claims Act.
In addition, plaintiff does not state a cognizable A.D.A. claim of action against Yolo County. Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II applies to state prisons. Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998).
McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, plaintiff has alleged only that Yolo County issued him a "Notice of Return to Prison stating that Plaintiff had no special needs." Dckt. No. 141 at 8. Thus, plaintiff does not allege that Yolo County discriminated against him by reason of his disability, but ...