Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100902_0057095.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-24 07:20:28
Document Index: 371617471

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1915']

| Bardo v. Martel
Bardo v. Martel
ROBERT J. BARDO, PLAINTIFF,v.M. MARTEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Robert J. Bardo, an inmate confined at Mule Creek State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, finds that it states potentially cognizable claims against defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos. For the reasons stated below, the allegations against Green, Chamberlin, Knipp, Martel, Pimental, McCloughan, Machado, Long, Porter, Clendenin, Lackner, Garcia, Chambers, Kaplan, Vanni, Wilson, Phillips, Reyes, Hutchins, Batchelor, Purviance, Luck, Islas, Dobler, Woolbright, Stewart, Thomas and Bueno, are dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 24, 2009, defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos searched plaintiff's cell in retaliation for a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants confiscated photographs of the late actress Rebecca Schaeffer, a pair of headphones, and T.V. Guide magazines. Exhibit A to plaintiff's complaint indicates that the photographs were confiscated because Ms. Schaeffer was plaintiff's murder victim. Plaintiff is currently serving a life sentence for that crime. Compl., Ex. A. Prison officials confiscated the photographs on the ground that allowing plaintiff to possess them would be contrary to the rehabilitative process and would not be in the interest of public safety or institutional safety. Liberally construed, these allegations may state cognizable claims against these defendants.
Plaintiff also alleges defendants Green, Chamberlin, Knipp, Martel, Pimental, McCloughan, Machado, Long, Porter, Clendenin, Lackner, Garcia, Chambers, Kaplan, Vanni, Wilson, Phillips, Reyes, Hutchins and Batchelor violated his constitutional rights in processing/denying plaintiff's various administrative appeals. Plaintiff may not impose liability on a defendant simply because he or she played a role in processing plaintiff's inmate appeals, as there are no constitutional requirements regarding how a grievance system is operated. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that prisoner's claimed loss of a liberty interest in the processing of his appeals does not violate due process because prisoners lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance system). Claims against these defendants are therefore dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 23, 2007, defendants Purviance and Luck confiscated unspecified non-contraband items from plaintiff's cell and refused to give plaintiff a chance to send items home as allowed by CDCR policy. Plaintiff also alleges that on July 27, 2007, he had to send home three boxes of property in order to comply with Article 43 of the Department Operations Manual, section 54030, which limits an inmate's property to six cubic feet. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Islas, Dobler and Woolbright threw out plaintiff's non-contraband property, including, internet printouts of celebrities, Smooth Magazine, and a Beatles cassette tape, instead of mailing it home with the other three boxes.
The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). The United States Supreme Court has held that "an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available."*fn1 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Thus, where the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v. MacDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff's allegations against defendants Purviance, Luck, Islas, Dobler and Woolbright are not actionable. Plaintiff alleges these defendants confiscated property in an intentional and unauthorized manner. Unauthorized deprivations of property cannot reasonably be anticipated and prevented by pre-deprivation process. Thus, these claims are not cognizable because the state of California provides adequate post-deprivation remedies that plaintiff can pursue.
Plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2007, defendant Stewart confiscated a Jimi Hendrix sticker from plaintiff's incoming mail on the ground that it posed a security or safety concern and that on March 3, 2009, defendant Thomas denied plaintiff cardstock, pursuant to institution regulations. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendant Bueno threatened to put plaintiff in administrative segregation after plaintiff reported to her that two inmates were harassing him. Plaintiff claims that Bueno used plaintiff's complaint against him, and also failed to protect him. These remaining allegations must be dismissed as unrelated to the claims against defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos. Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). However, unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. "The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): 'A party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing party.' Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). Claims against defendants Stewart, Thomas and Bueno are therefore dismissed.
Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos and pursue his claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to state a cognizable claim against additional defendants.
If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against additional defendants he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint. However, if plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos, against whom he has stated a potentially cognizable claim for relief, then within 30 days he must return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe plaintiff's election as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendants Green, Chamberlin, Knipp, Martel, Pimental, McCloughan, Machado, Long, Porter, Clendenin, Lackner, Garcia, Chambers, Kaplan, Vanni, Wilson, Phillips, Reyes, Hutchins, Batchelor, Purviance, Luck, Islas, Dobler, Woolbright, Stewart, Thomas and Bueno, without prejudice.
As stated above, plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in an amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no "buckshot" complaints).
A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff certifies his claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claims against defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos.
3. Claims against defendants Green, Chamberlin, Knipp, Martel, Pimental, McCloughan, Machado, Long, Porter, Clendenin, Lackner, Garcia, Chambers, Kaplan, Vanni, Wilson, Phillips, Reyes, Hutchins, Batchelor, Purviance, Luck, Islas, Dobler, Woolbright, Stewart, Thomas and Bueno are dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants, in accordance with this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.
4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state potentially cognizable claims against defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the complaint filed December 16, 2009, three USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos. Within 30 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and four copies of the December 16, 2009 complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants Lockhart, Butcher, and Ramos will be required to respond to plaintiff's allegations within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this event, the court will construe plaintiff's election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims against defendants Green, Chamberlin, Knipp, Martel, Pimental, McCloughan, Machado, Long, Porter, Clendenin, Lackner, Garcia, Chambers, Kaplan, Vanni, Wilson, Phillips, Reyes, Hutchins, Batchelor, Purviance, Luck, Islas, Dobler, Woolbright, Stewart, Thomas and Bueno without prejudice.
(1) ______ consent to the dismissal of defendants Green, Chamberlin, Knipp, Martel, Pimental, McCloughan, Machado, Long, Porter, Clendenin, Lackner, Garcia, Chambers, Kaplan, Vanni, Wilson, Phillips, Reyes, Hutchins, Batchelor, Purviance, Luck, Islas, Dobler, Woolbright, Stewart, Thomas and Bueno without prejudice, and submits the following documents:
3 completed forms USM-285
4 copies of the December 16, 2009 Complaint
(2) ______ delay serving any defendant and files an amended complaint in an attempt to state cognizable claims against additional defendants.