Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01263/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01263-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MARION SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PFEIFFER, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01263 DLB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff James Marion Sims (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 17, 2015. He 

names Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) Chief Deputy Warden C. Pfeiffer, KVSP Correctional 

Counselor E. Sanders, KVSP Correctional Lt. Phillips and KVSP Correctional Officer B. Valdez 

as Defendants.1

A. SCREENING STANDARD

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 a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate on November 30, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-01263-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison. The events at issue occurred 

while he was incarcerated at KVSP.

Plaintiff contends that on April 30, 2012, Defendant Valdez wrote a false report claiming 

that Plaintiff threatened her and made an attempt to be “over familiar” with her. ECF No. 1, at 3. 

Case 1:15-cv-01263-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

On June 7, 2012, during the disciplinary hearing, Defendant Phillips told Plaintiff that he 

believed that he was innocent. Defendant Phillips further stated that the last time he did the right 

thing for a prisoner, he was demoted. Plaintiff believes that the fear of demotion caused 

Defendant Phillips to find him guilty.

On September 13, 2012, Defendant Sanders told the Committee that Plaintiff made a 

statement that threatened Defendant Valdez. Plaintiff contends that this statement was false and 

led to punishment “after C.S.R. agreed [he] did not threaten the officer.” ECF No. 1, at 3.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pfeiffer knew that Defendant Sanders made this 

false statement, but he upheld and confirmed the statement. Plaintiff contends that Defendant 

Pfeiffer was told by the C.S.R. Chairperson that “this was not a threat,” but he ignored it. ECF 

No. 1, at 4.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ actions were deliberately 

indifferent. He also contends that Defendant Pfeiffer violated his due process rights by not 

granting a new rules violation hearing.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment, but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)) (quotation 

marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, 

they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 

(citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which are devoid of 

legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress 

of a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks 

and citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. 

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th 

Case 1:15-cv-01263-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains 

while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks 

omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials 

were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 

F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. 

Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

Contrary to Plaintiff’s belief, a false disciplinary report and resulting punishment do not 

rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. There is no indication that Defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety, and Plaintiff does not 

allege that he was denied humane conditions of confinement as a result of the allegedly false 

charges.

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

2. Due Process

“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full 

panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974). With respect to prison disciplinary proceedings, the 

minimum procedural requirements that must be met are: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at 

least 24 hours between the time the prisoner receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so 

that the prisoner may prepare his defense; (3) a written statement by the fact finders of the 

evidence they rely on and reasons for taking disciplinary action; (4) the right of the prisoner to call 

witnesses in his defense, when permitting him to do so would not be unduly hazardous to 

institutional safety or correctional goals; and (5) legal assistance to the prisoner where the prisoner 

is illiterate or the issues presented are legally complex. Id. at 563-71. As long as the five 

minimum Wolff requirements are met, due process has been satisfied. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 

1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 

(1995).

Case 1:15-cv-01263-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/03/15 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

In addition, “some evidence” must support the decision of the hearing officer, 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985), and the evidence must have 

some indicia of reliability, Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987). The “some 

evidence” standard is not particularly stringent and the relevant inquiry is whether “there is any

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached. . . .” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56 

(emphasis added). 

In his complaint, Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied any of the applicable 

procedural protections, i.e., written notice of the charges or the right to call witnesses. 

To the extent that he believes that his due process rights were violated by the issuance of 

the false report, Plaintiff has no due process right to be free from false rule violation reports. See

e.g., Ellis v. Foulk, 2014 WL 4676530, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2014) (“Plaintiff’s protection from the 

arbitrary action of prison officials lies in ‘the procedural due process requirements as set forth in 

Wolff v. McDonnell.’”) (citing Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140 (7th Cir. 1984)); Solomon 

v. Meyer, 2014 WL 294576, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2014) (“[T]here is no constitutionally protected right 

to be free from false disciplinary charges.”) (citing Chavira v. Rankin, 2012 WL 5914913, at *1 

(N.D.Cal. 2012) (“The Constitution demands due process, not error-free decision-making.”)).

Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pfeiffer violated his due process rights by failing 

to give Plaintiff a new hearing even though he was told that Plaintiff did not make any threats. 

This claim is essentially an allegation that Defendant Pfeiffer upheld a finding that Plaintiff 

believes was based on false allegations. As Plaintiff does not have a due process right to be free 

from false accusations, as noted above, he does not have a due process claim against a reviewer of 

those accusations.

Again, while Plaintiff may not be deprived of a protected liberty interest without the 

protections he is due under federal law, he does not contend that he was not afforded the process 

he was due with respect to his disciplinary hearing.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against any Defendants. Due to the nature of the 

deficiencies, it is unclear whether Plaintiff can correct the issues. Nonetheless, the Court will 

Case 1:15-cv-01263-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/03/15 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

afford Plaintiff one opportunity to correct the deficiencies identified above. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 

F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff amends, he may not change the 

nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under 

section 1983, it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the mere 

theory of respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 

(9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 

allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . .” Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order. 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01263-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/03/15 Page 6 of 6