a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 18 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 19 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation
How later courts described this case
- a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 18 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 19 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation
- holding that an inmate did not state a constitutional claim based on dissemination of 3 his mental health records to the parole board
- affirming district court dismissal of inmate’s informational privacy claim connected to a 5 parole board hearing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 STEPHEN F. SNOW, No. 2:23-cv-02117-KJM-EFB (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
13
v. ORDER
14
JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
19 U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the filing fee.
20 Screening Standards
21 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
23 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
24 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
25 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
26 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
27 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)
28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and
1 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
2 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
3 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
4 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,
5 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
6 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
7 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked
8 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
9 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
10 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
11 678.
12 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.
13 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
14 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
15 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a
16 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.
17 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
18 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
19 Screening Order
20 Plaintiff alleges that, on July 31, 2017, he discovered that state Board of Parole Hearings
21 psychologist, defendant Weiss, had accessed his confidential mental health records without his
22 knowledge or consent. ECF No. 1 at 8-9. The Board denied his bid for parole based, in part, on
23 Weiss’s “risk assessment” report. Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges that these actions violated his equal
24 protection, due process, and Fourth Amendment rights. Id.
25 “[P]risoners do not have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in prison
26 treatment records when the state has a legitimate penological interest in access to them.” Seaton
27 v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that state officials did not violate the
28 Constitution by reviewing an inmate’s medical records in determining whether to commit the
1 inmate as a sexually violent predator); see also Coleman v. Martin, 63 Fed. Appx. 791, 793 (6th
2 Cir. 2003) (holding that an inmate did not state a constitutional claim based on dissemination of
3 his mental health records to the parole board); Wilson v. Wheeler, 584 Fed. Appx. 365 (9th Cir.
4 2014) (affirming district court dismissal of inmate’s informational privacy claim connected to a
5 parole board hearing). Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that any defendant lacked a
6 legitimate penological justification for accessing his records to determine his suitability for
7 parole. Indeed, such a claim would be difficult to make, as the Ninth Circuit has found that
8 protection of the public and management of rehabilitative efforts are legitimate interests. Seaton,
9 610 F.3d at 534-35.
10 Nevertheless, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the
11 deficiencies identified herein.
12 Leave to Amend
13 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an
14 amended complaint it should observe the following:
15 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally
16 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v.
17 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a
18 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is
19 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe,
20 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his
21 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth
22 in the amended complaint.
23 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants.
24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
25 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See
26 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
27 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself
28 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended
1 || complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the
2 || earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
3 | F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter
4 || being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
5 || 1967)).
6 Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in
7 | fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of
8 || procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims.
9 Conclusion
10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
11 1. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days
12 from the date of service of this order; and
13 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons
14 stated herein.
° Hr yt EBL
16 || Dated: December 19, 2023 Za! lb 7 LACEY
17 CRIED STATES MACECRATE ITNE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28