Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hicks v. Pastor

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

December 16, 2019

RONNIE LEE HICKS, II, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL PASTOR, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND

          David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Ronnie Lee Hicks II, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2019, the Court stayed this case pending Plaintiff's interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. 22. On November 27, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the Appeal. Dkts. 23, 24. On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a status report indicating he had withdrawn his appeal. Dkt. 25. Because the Plaintiff has withdrawn his appeal and the Ninth Circuit has now made a determination on Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the Appeal, the Court now lifts the stay.

         Having reviewed and screened Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint contains deficiencies such that the Court declines to serve it at this time, but provides Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by January 16, 2020 to cure the deficiencies identified herein.

         I. Order

         II. Background

         Plaintiffs Ronnie Lee Hicks II, Mathew Gant, and Mathew Renguul, initially filed this Complaint under a single cause of action. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff Hicks filed the only Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), which the Court granted. Dkts. 13, 14. The Court denied Plaintiff Hicks' Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 16) without prejudice and dismissed Plaintiffs Gant and Renguul from this action. Dkts. 17, 19. The Court now proceeds to screen the Complaint as it pertains to Plaintiff Hicks (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the remaining Plaintiff in this matter.

         III. Discussion

         Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).

         A. Severance

         The Complaint was also signed by dismissed Plaintiffs Gant and Renguul. Dkts. 15, 17, 19. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint addressing only his individual claims and not claims related to either Mathew Gant or Mathew Renguul.[1]

         B. Grievances

         Plaintiff alleges Defendants Finely, Winslow, Mastandrea, Slothower, Alexander, Graham, Carolous, Allen, and Ake violated his constitutional rights by refusing to provide grievance forms. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jones denied Plaintiff's appeal. Dkt. 15.

         However, prisoners do not have a stand-alone due process rights related to the administrative grievance process. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding there is no liberty interest entitling prisoners to a specific grievance process). “Because there is no right to any particular grievance process, it is impossible for due process to have been violated by ignoring or failing to properly process grievances.” Grigsby v. Hubert, 2009 WL 1861172, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2009). Defendants Finely, Winslow, Mastandrea, Slothhower, Alexander, Graham, Carolous, Allen, Ake, and Jones cannot be held liable for their actions related to Plaintiff's requests for grievances. Plaintiff is directed to show cause why these claims should not be dismissed.

         B. Defendants Allen and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.