# (PC) Dalke v. Sacramento Corrections

> District Court, E.D. California · June 22, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10053529

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 22, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10053529

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing proximate cause in the context of § 1983

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOSHUA JASON DALKE, No. 2:22-cv-1842 DAD AC P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SACRAMENTO CORRECTIONS, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
18 has paid the filing fee.
19 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a
21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
22 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
23 “frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks
24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
25 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
26 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
27 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal
28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639,
1 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as
2 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a
3 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
4 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted).
5 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
6 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
7 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
8 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
9 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context
10 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman,
11 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure
12 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
13 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the
14 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain
15 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally
16 cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
17 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)).
18 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
19 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
20 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
21 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
22 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this
23 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg.
24 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the
25 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,
26 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted).
27 ////
28 ////
1 II. Complaint
2 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Hyman and Moseley1 violated his rights under the First,
3 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 1. He asserts that, contrary to the Department of
4 Justice’s instructions, Hyman placed an “R” suffix on his file indicating sex offender status,
5 which resulted in inmates attacking plaintiff after correctional officers told them that he was a
6 child rapist. Id. at 3, 6-7. Plaintiff also appears to allege that his risk assessment was increased
7 based on the addition of the “R” suffix and being labeled violent after having to defend himself
8 from other inmates, causing him to be denied parole. Id. at 6-9. Finally, plaintiff indicates that he
9 is attempting to bring a retaliation claim and asserts that he dropped a grievance because of “all
10 the retaliation that goes on do [sic] to the civil suite [sic].” Id. at 3, 8.
11 III. Failure to State a Claim
12 A. “R” Suffix Addition
13 Classifying an inmate as a sex offender implicates a protected liberty interest when the
14 “stigmatizing consequences” of being labeled a sex offender are coupled with some form of
15 mandatory behavior modification. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 830 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he
16 stigmatizing consequences of the attachment of the ‘sex offender’ label coupled with the
17 subjection of the targeted inmate to a mandatory treatment program whose successful completion
18 is a precondition for parole eligibility create the kind of deprivations of liberty that require
19 procedural protections.”). Where an inmate has been previously convicted of a sex offense after
20 formal criminal proceedings, he “has received the minimum protections required by due process”
21 and “[p]rison officials need do no more than notify such an inmate that he has been classified as a
22 sex offender because of his prior conviction for a sex crime.” Id. at 831. However, when an
23 inmate “has never been convicted of a sex offense and has never had an opportunity to formally
24 challenge the imposition of the ‘sex offender’ label in an adversarial setting,” he is entitled to the

25 1 Although “Sacramento Corrections” is identified as a defendant in the caption, it is not included
26 in the list of defendants and there are no allegations against it. It therefore appears that plaintiff
does not intend it as a defendant. Regardless, since it appears that Sacramento Corrections refers
27 to the California Department of Corrections Sacramento headquarters, it is not a proper defendant
because it is an arm of the state and “not subject to suit under § 1983.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S.
28 356, 365 (1990) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)).
1 same procedural protections outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Id. at 830-31.
2 In other words, he is entitled to advance, written notification “of the reasons for his classification
3 as a sex offender without . . . having to request that information” and “a hearing at which he must
4 be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense.” Id. at 830-31 &
5 n.14. He is also entitled to a written statement as to the evidence relied on and reasoning for the
6 decision, assistance at the hearing if he is illiterate or the matter is complex, and a sufficiently
7 impartial fact finder. Wolff, 4818 U.S. at 564, 570-71.
8 Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to show that his classification as a sex offender
9 infringed on a protected liberty interest. There are no facts showing the classification was
10 coupled with mandatory behavior modification or imposed any other kind of atypical and
11 significant hardship. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (liberty interest created
12 when prison regulation “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
13 ordinary incidents of prison life”). Though plaintiff does allege that his risk assessment was
14 increased, resulting in parole being denied, it is unclear whether the sex offender designation
15 mandated the increase in his risk assessment or whether it was solely a consequence of being
16 charged with fighting after defending himself against other inmates.
17 Moreover, even if the addition of an “R” suffix entitled plaintiff to due process
18 protections, he has not alleged facts showing that he was denied those protections. Plaintiff
19 alleges he was convicted of a “sexual misconduct misdemeanor” in another state, and appears to
20 argue that because this conviction does not require sex offender registration it does not meet the
21 definition of sex offense for purposes of adding an “R” suffix. Id. at 6-7. Assuming plaintiff is
22 correct and his conviction is not defined as a sex offense, and he would therefore be entitled to all
23 the protections outlined in Wolff, he does not allege facts showing he was denied those
24 protections and therefore fails to state a claim. Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief if he was
25 provided all the necessary procedural protections and instead simply disagrees with the result.
26 B. Parole Denial
27 Plaintiff appears to allege that the addition of the “R” suffix resulted in the denial of due
28 process in the parole review process. However, there are no facts demonstrating that labeling
1 plaintiff a sex offender precluded a grant of parole, and even if Hyman placing an “R” suffix on
2 plaintiff’s file was a primary reason he was denied parole, that fact would not create a basis for
3 liability. None of the named defendants appear to have been directly involved in the parole
4 review process, and “[u]nder California law, the parole board must consider ‘[a]ll relevant,
5 reliable information’ in determining suitability for parole.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2281(b)-(c)
6 (outlining information for consideration and circumstances tending to show unsuitability). The
7 named defendants cannot be held liable for a subsequent decision an independent body makes,
8 and their conduct described in the complaint cannot be considered the proximate cause of the
9 parole board’s decision. See Mendez v. County of Los Angeles, 897 F.3d 1067, 1076-77 (9th
10 Cir. 2018) (discussing proximate cause in the context of § 1983).
11 C. Failure to Protect
12 Prison officials “are under an obligation to take reasonable measures to guarantee the
13 safety of the inmates.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984). This responsibility
14 requires prison officials “to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners,”
15 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (citation omitted), and identifying an inmate as a
16 sex offender in front of other inmates for the purpose of putting him at risk of assault states a
17 claim under Eighth Amendment. See Valdez v. Marques, No. 21-cv-1500 MMA (RBM), 2021
18 WL 4690511, at *3-4, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194474, at *9-10 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021)
19 (collecting cases). However, plaintiff does not identify or name as defendants any specific
20 individuals who told other inmates of his sex offender status. He also does not allege facts
21 indicating the named defendants were responsible for the conduct of the other officers or
22 designated him a sex offender knowing that other officers would purposely disclose plaintiff’s
23 status. The complaint therefore fails to state a viable claim for failure to protect. See Farmer, 511
24 U.S. at 837 (Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim requires showing that “the official
25 [knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”).
26 D. Retaliation
27 A viable First Amendment claim for retaliation must include the following five elements:
28 “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3)
1 that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First
2 Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.”
3 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and citations omitted).
4 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to make a retaliation claim, it is unclear whether he
5 experienced any retaliation or merely anticipated retaliation, as he says only that he dropped his
6 602 because of “all the retaliation that goes on.” ECF No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff does not identify any
7 adverse action that he was subjected to or allege that either defendant was responsible for that
8 conduct.
9 E. Personal Involvement
10 “Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant,”
11 Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
12 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980)), and “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil
13 rights violations are not sufficient,” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)
14 (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts regarding defendant Moseley’s conduct and
15 therefore fails to state any claims for relief against him.
16 IV. Leave to Amend
17 The complaint does not state any cognizable claims for relief and plaintiff will be given an
18 opportunity to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint,
19 he must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his
20 constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must
21 allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs.
22 Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
23 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed
24 deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and
25 conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v.
26 Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted).
27 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make
28 his first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be
1 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an
2 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
3 1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th
4 Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled
5 in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended
6 complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an
7 amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each
8 defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
9 V. Motions for Assistance
10 Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the court order the District Attorney’s office in
11 Rochester, New York to produce documents related to his 1999 conviction for sexual misconduct.
12 ECF No. 20. He has also filed a motion seeking to open discovery and have an evidentiary
13 hearing. ECF No. 21. As set forth above, the complaint has been screened and does not set forth
14 any claims for relief. Any discovery is therefore premature at this point, and plaintiff’s motions
15 for documents, to begin discovery, and for an evidentiary hearing will be denied.
16 Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 21. The United States
17 Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent
18 prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In
19 certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of
20 counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.
21 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
22 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the
23 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims
24 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,
25 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden
26 of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to
27 most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish
28 exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
1 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel to assist him in obtaining discovery. ECF No. 21.
2 However, as addressed above, the court has only just screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed
3 it with leave to amend, making discovery premature. Furthermore, in screening the complaint,
4 the court has outlined the applicable legal standards for plaintiff and explained to him what he
5 needs to show in order to state a claim. Plaintiff should attempt to follow the instructions given
6 by the court when amending his complaint. Finally, because the complaint has been found to not
7 state any viable claims for relief, the court is unable to evaluate plaintiff’s likelihood of success
8 on the merits at this time. For these reasons, plaintiff has not shown the existence of
9 extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time.
10 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant
11 Your complaint will not be served because the facts you alleged are not enough to state a
12 claim. You have not alleged facts showing that you were entitled to due process before being
13 classified as a sex offender, because it does not appear that you were required to participate in sex
14 offender treatment or that the designation caused some other kind of hardship for you outside the
15 normal hardships of being in prison. Assuming you were entitled to due process, you have not
16 shown that you were denied such process when the “R” suffix was added to your file. There are
17 also no facts showing that either defendant was responsible for telling other inmates you are a sex
18 offender. Finally, there are no allegations showing what defendant Mosely did and there are no
19 facts regarding the retaliation you experienced or who retaliated against you.
20 You may amend your complaint to try to fix these problems. Be sure to provide facts that
21 show exactly what each defendant did to violate your rights or to cause a violation of your rights.
22 If you choose to file a first amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to bring.
23 Once an amended complaint is filed, the court will not look at any information in the original
24 complaint. Any claims and information not in the first amended complaint will not be
25 considered.
26 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
27 1. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and will not be served.
] 2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended
2 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil
3 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket
4 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an
5 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action
6 || be dismissed.
7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint
8 | form used in this district.
9 4. Plaintiffs motion for the court to order the production of documents (ECF No. 20) is
10 | DENIED.
11 5. Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel, to begin discovery, and for an
12 || evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.
13 | DATED: June 21, 2023 . .
14 Cthten— Lape
15 ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10053529. Public record. Not legal advice.