# (PC) Fearence v. CDCR

> District Court, E.D. California · June 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087410

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 30, 2025
- **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/11087410

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing elements of retaliation claim

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JAQUES OMAR FEARENCE, 2:24-cv-3567-WBS-CKD P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 CDCR, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Jaques Fearence, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel. Plaintiff filed this
18 civil rights action in the Solano County Superior Court and defendants removed it to this court on
19 December 19, 2024. This matter is referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C.
20 § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint states a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against
21 defendant Alvarez and a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Norman. Plaintiff
22 may proceed on these claims or file an amended complaint under the guidelines set forth below.
23 I. Screening Requirement
24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
26 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
27 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
1 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement
2 of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
3 544, 555 (2007). In order to state a cognizable claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked
4 assertions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
5 allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. The facts alleged
6 must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
7 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a
8 complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of the complaint and
9 construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
10 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
11 II. Allegations in the Complaint
12 The events described in the complaint allegedly occurred at California Medical Facility
13 (“CMF”) in Vacaville, California. (ECF No. 1 at 17-18.) Plaintiff had a full-time assignment in
14 the Main Kitchen, where defendant S. Norman was a Correctional Cook. (Id. at 17.) Defendant
15 Norman treated plaintiff differently and less favorably than her “favorite inmates” who only did
16 the bare minimum of work and got “extra food or whatever they wanted[.]” (Id. at 18.) When
17 plaintiff field a grievance alleging staff misconduct by defendant Norman, she retaliated against
18 him with “intimidation and coercion,” threats to fire plaintiff from his job assignment, a
19 recommendation of reassignment made on false pretenses, and frivolous rules violation reports
20 issued because of plaintiff’s grievances. (Id. at 18-21.)
21 On April 23, 2023, defendant Alvarez, who was also a Correctional Cook, insulted
22 plaintiff with a derogatory racial slang reference in Spanish. (ECF No. 1 at 21-24.) Alvaraz
23 nagged, disrespected, and harassed plaintiff constantly, threatened to write plaintiff up with
24 frivolous write ups, and discriminated against him based on his race because she favored
25 Hispanic/Mexican inmates. (Id.) Alvarez made African American/Black inmates do more work
26 than other races in the Main Kitchen and treated them less favorably. (Id. at 22, 25.) Alvarez lied
27 and had plaintiff escorted out of his job assignment for no reason at all. (Id. at 24.)
28 ////
1 Plaintiff has a severe vision impairment/disability. (ECF No. 1 at 25.) On February 13,
2 2023, plaintiff was leaving religious services at Chapel B when defendant Crosby denied plaintiff
3 access to the elevator because Crosby believed plaintiff ‘wanted to roam around the Unit.” (Id. at
4 25-26.) Plaintiff had to take the stairs, which he alleges violated his rights under the Americans
5 with Disabilities Act. (Id.)
6 On April 29, 2023, defendant Vang tried to coerce plaintiff into signing a form waiving
7 his right to be present at a disciplinary hearing for RVR Log No. 7295122, stating that if plaintiff
8 refused, a guilty verdict would be rendered. (ECF No. 1 at 28.) Plaintiff asked for a Staff
9 Assistant to ensure effective communication and Vang incorrectly stated plaintiff did not meet the
10 criteria. (Id.) The hearing took place without plaintiff or his Staff Assistant present. (Id. at 29.)
11 Vang later reported to plaintiff that defendant Thurmon adjudicated plaintiff guilty “Like I said he
12 would[.]” (Id. at 29.)
13 Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, the
14 California Constitution, the California Code of Regulations, the Due Process and Equal
15 Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Americans with
16 Disabilities Act. He seeks damages and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1 at 46.)
17 III. Discussion
18 A. Americans with Disabilities Act
19 The complaint does not state a claim under Title II of the ADA. “To establish a violation
20 of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [ ]he is a qualified individual with a
21 disability; (2) [ ]he was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with
22 regard to a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; and (3) such exclusion or
23 discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th
24 Cir. 2002). To recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must also prove
25 intentional discrimination on the part of the defendants. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d
26 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001).
27 Assuming that plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, he does not allege any
28 facts suggesting defendant Crosby denied him access to the elevator because of his disability or
1 otherwise discriminated against plaintiff because of his disability. Instead, defendant Crosby
2 denied plaintiff access to the elevator because Crosby believed plaintiff wanted to roam around
3 the unit. (ECF No. 1 at 26.) This does not state a claim under the ADA.
4 B. Federal Constitutional Claims
5 A plaintiff may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of “rights,
6 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws” by a person or entity,
7 including a municipality, acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts
8 violations of his rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
9 Amendment. Plaintiff also alleges defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances.1
10 1. Procedural Due Process
11 The complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of plaintiff’s procedural due process
12 rights. Plaintiff alleges he was denied a Staff Assistant and the right to be present at the
13 disciplinary hearing for RVR Log No. 7295122. (ECF No. 1 at 28-29.) Prisoners are afforded
14 certain minimum procedural safeguards in regard to prison disciplinary actions. Hughes v. Rowe,
15 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Here, though, exhibits
16 attached to the complaint make clear that RVR Log No. 7295122 was ordered reissued and
17 reheard to correct the violations in process about which plaintiff complains. (Id. at 70.) No due
18 process claim lies where the alleged procedural errors were corrected through the administrative
19 process. Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 763 (9th Cir. 2015).
20 2. Equal Protection
21 The complaint states an equal protection claim against defendant Alvarez only. To state
22 claim for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must generally show the
23 defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon
24 membership in a protected class. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th
25 Cir. 2005). A plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating “intentional unlawful discrimination or…
26
1 Plaintiff further alleges defendants harassed him, treated him disrespectfully, and acted
27 unprofessionally. Plaintiff’s allegations of harassment, verbal insults, and disrespect do not state a
Constitutional claim. See generally Oltarzerski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987);
28 Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167. 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2004).
1 facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent.” Monteiro v. Tempe
2 Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).
3 Plaintiff adequately alleges membership in a protected class. Only defendant Alvarez is
4 alleged to have discriminated against plaintiff based on plaintiff’s membership in a protected
5 class. The facts alleged are susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent where defendant
6 allegedly insulted plaintiff with a derogatory racial slang and made African American/Black
7 inmates do more work in the main kitchen than other races. As to the other defendants, no
8 specific allegations suggest intentional discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
9 See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57 (“[N]aked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a
10 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” do not suffice to state a claim); Todd v.
11 Briesenick, No. 13–CV–0753 (KJM)(KJN), 2013 WL 2151658, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2013)
12 (granting motion to dismiss where “plaintiff [did] not provide specific facts, beyond mere
13 speculation, supporting his claims that defendants treated him differently from similarly situated
14 persons”).
15 3. Retaliation
16 The right of access to the courts extends to the exercise of established prison grievance
17 procedures, Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995), such that a prisoner may not be
18 retaliated against for using such procedures. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.
19 2005) (discussing elements of retaliation claim). In order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff
20 must plead facts suggesting that retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the
21 “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the defendant’s conduct. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v.
22 Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989).
23 The complaint states a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Norman only.
24 The complaint does not plead specific facts suggesting any defendant other than Norman knew
25 about plaintiff’s protected activity and took an adverse action that was causally connected to
26 plaintiff’s protected activity. See Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560, 562 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1990)
27 (“Mere allegations of constitutional retaliation will not suffice; plaintiffs must rather allege
28 specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional rights.”).
1 C. State Law Claims
2 Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Constitution, the California Code of
3 Regulations, and the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (“Bane Act”). The complaint does not, however,
4 plead any facts suggesting compliance with California’s Government Claims Act (“GCA”). No
5 state lawsuit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity unless those claims
6 have been presented for review and rejects them by issuing notice or failing to act. See Cal. Gov’t
7 Code § 900 et seq. “Compliance with [the GCA] is required before Plaintiff may sue a state entity
8 or its officers for tort violations and claims under the California Constitution or the Bane Act.”
9 Davis v. Allison, No. 1:21-CV-00494-JLT-HBK-PC, 2023 WL 6796753, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct.
10 13, 2023) (citing collected cases), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Davis v.
11 Godwin, No. 1:21-CV-00494-JLT-HBK-PC, 2023 WL 8789296 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023).
12 Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege compliance with the GCA and therefore fails to plead any
13 state law claim for damages. See Mohsin v. California Dep’t of Water Res., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1006,
14 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (dismissing state law claims for failure to allege compliance with GCA). It
15 is possible plaintiff could remedy this defect by alleging further facts if plaintiff timely presented
16 his claims. Plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend.
17 IV. Leave to Amend
18 Plaintiff’s complaint states a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against
19 defendant Alvarez and a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Norman. No other
20 claims are stated. Plaintiff may proceed on the claims stated or plaintiff may file an amended
21 complaint. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).
22 If plaintiff chooses to proceed on the claims stated, the court will construe this choice as a
23 request to voluntarily dismiss the additional claims and defendants pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of
24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Then the court will send plaintiff the necessary forms for
25 the complaint to be served on defendants Norman and Alvarez.
26 Plaintiff must complete and return to the court the attached notice along with any optional
27 amended complaint if plaintiff chooses to amend. This opportunity to amend is not for the
28 purposes of adding new and unrelated claims. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
1 |} 2007). Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference to any
2 | prior pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Any amended complaint
3 || should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and should reference the case number.
4 V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party
5 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. This summary
6 || is not intended as legal advice.
7 The court has screened your complaint and found it states a retaliation claim against
8 | defendant Norman and an equal protection claim against defendant Alvarez. You must complete
9 || the attached notice and return it to the court within 30 days from the date of this order, along with
10 || any optional amended complaint, informing the court how you choose to proceed.
11 VI. Conclusion
12 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
13 1. Plaintiff's complaint states a retaliation claim against defendant Norman and an equal
14 protection claim against defendant Alvarez; plaintiff may proceed on these claims or
15 file an amended complaint.
16 2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the
17 attached Notice of Election form along with any optional amended complaint.
18 3. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be
19 dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.
20 | Dated: June 30, 2025 □□ I / dip Ze
21 CAROLYNK. DELANEY
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24 || 8, fear3567.scrn.clect
25
26
27
28

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 JAQUES OMAR FEARENCE, 2:24-cv-3567-WBS-CKD P
5 Plaintiff,
6 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION
7 CDCR, et al.,
8 Defendants
9
10 Check one:
11
12 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed on the complaint as screened with a retaliation claim against
13 defendant Norman and an equal protection claim against defendant Alvarez. Plaintiff
14 understands that by choosing to proceed on these claims, he is requesting to voluntarily
15 dismiss the additional claims and defendants pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal
16 Rules of Civil Procedure.
17
18 ____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint.
19
20
21
22
23
24 DATED:_______________________
Plaintiff
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087410. Public record. Not legal advice.