1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVANTA CRENSHAW, Case No.: 23-CV-312 JLS (DEB) CDCR #BN-0050, 12 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST Plaintiff, 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT vs. WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO 14 AMEND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. CDCR California State Prison Los 15 §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) Angeles County and CDCR Richard J. 16 Donovan Correctional Facility, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Davanta Crenshaw, a state prisoner housed at the 20 Richard J. Donovan Detention Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, proceeding pro 21 se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to

, accompanied by a Motion 22 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Plaintiff claimed his due process 23 rights were violated when inmate grievances he filed while housed at RJD and California 24 State Prison, Los Angeles County (“LAC”) in Lancaster, California, were granted but he 25 did not receive the $5 billion in compensation he requested. ECF No. 1 at 3. 26 On March 7, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and dismissed 27 the Complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 5. On March 20, 28 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 6. 1 I. Screening Pursuant to

(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 2 A. Standard of Review 3 Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his Complaint requires pre- 4 answer screening pursuant to

(e)(2) & 1915A(b). Under these statutes, 5 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 6 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 7 immune. Lopez v. Smith,

, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Rhodes v.

F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010). 9 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 10 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter,

1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman,

(9th Cir. 13 2012) (noting that § 1915A screening “incorporates the familiar standard applied in the 14 context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”) Rule 15 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 16 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009), 17 quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). Detailed factual 18 allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 19 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,

. 20 Title

“creates a private right of action against individuals who, 21 acting under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights.” 22 Devereaux v. Abbey,

(9th Cir. 2001). “To establish § 1983 liability, 23 a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws 24 of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under 25 color of state law.” Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2012). 26 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 27 Plaintiff alleges that on January 24, 2023, his 602-inmate grievance log #336879 28 was granted but that he has not received the $5 billion he requested as a remedy. ECF No. 1 6 at 3. Because of his prior experience with the inmate grievance system, he decided not 2 to file a third 602-inmate grievance complaining of the failure to provide him with his 3 requested remedy but to instead initiate this civil action.

He claims that in granting his 4 602-inmate grievance, the Defendants, RJD and LAC, admitted they violated his due 5 process rights, and by failing to pay the money he requested they have caused him pain and 6 suffering.

He seeks monetary compensation of $5 billion. Id. at 7. 7 Attached to the FAC are copies of several 602-inmate appeals and responses by the 8 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Grievances. ECF No. 9 6-1; ECF No. 6-2. These documents indicate that on August 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a 602- 10 inmate grievance log #290213 complaining that the time constraints for responses on his 11 prior three 602-inmate grievances, log #263081, #256732 and #259908, had not been 12 followed. ECF No. 6-1 at 8. On August 20, 2023, the Office of Grievances granted the 13 grievance on the basis that the delayed responses were caused by the Centralized Screening 14 Team inadvertently assigning all three grievances a new log number because they were all 15 appealing issues with other grievances. Id. at 2–4. On November 19, 2022, the Office of 16 Grievances granted 602-inmate grievance log #327575, which complained that the time 17 constraints had not been properly followed in addressing a prior 602-inmate grievance 18 Plaintiff filed at RJD complaining of an incident at LAC, explaining again that the 19 Centralized Screening Team had inadvertently assigned it a new log number. Id. at 10–11. 20 Finally, on January 24, 2023, the Office of Grievances granted Plaintiff’s 602-inmate 21 grievance log #336879, the one at issue here. ECF No. 6-2 at 5–6. That decision indicated 22 that although a response to grievance log #309973 was mailed prior to its due date, they 23 could not confirm or deny whether Plaintiff received it, and because it involved a claim 24 which occurred at LAC, it had been transferred there. Id. The “remedy” section of that 25 response states in full: “A copy of the response to grievance log #209973 [sic] has been 26 included for the claimant’s convenience.” Id. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 C. Analysis 2 Plaintiff once again claims in the FAC that he was denied his right to due process 3 from the failure of the two Defendants, RJD and LAC, to pay his demand of $5 billion 4 included in the inmate grievance they granted. The original Complaint contained these 5 same allegations and was dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 6 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. 7 ECF No. 5. 8 As Plaintiff was informed in the Court’s prior Order of dismissal, see

, “[t]he 9 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, 10 liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish 11 that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin,

(2005). “The 12 Supreme court has held that a State creates a protected liberty by placing substantive 13 limitations on official discretion, [and] that to obtain a protectable right an individual must 14 have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it, [but] there is no legitimate claim of entitlement 15 to a grievance procedure.” Mann v. Adams,

(9th Cir. 1988) (citations 16 and quote marks omitted). Plaintiff is unable to pursue a claim for denial of due process 17 based on allegations of untimely processing of his inmate grievances or the failure to pay 18 his monetary demands therein because there is no protected liberty interest or independent 19 constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. Ramirez v. 20 Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional 21 entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” (citing Mann,

)). 22 Plaintiff’s FAC is dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which 23 relief may be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1). Because 24 it is now absolutely clear Plaintiff cannot cure this defect of pleading a

25 claim by the allegation of other facts, this action is dismissed without further leave to 26 amend. See Rosati v. Igbinoso,

(9th Cir. 2015) (“A district court 27 should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)] unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint 1 ||could not be cured by amendment.’” (quoting Akhtar v. Mesa,

(9th 2 || Cir. 2012))). 3 ||. Conclusion and Orders 4 Good cause appearing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 5 || without further leave to amend for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 6 || pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i) & 1915A(b)(1). The Clerk of Court shall enter 7 || final judgment accordingly. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: April 25, 2023 . tt f te 10 on. Janis L. Sammartino 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 □□