Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00161/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00161-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00161-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint filed February 4, 2016.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on February 22, 2016. (ECF No. 6.)

Case 1:16-cv-00161-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/12/16 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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Kern Valley State Prison, brings this action against correctional 

officials employed by the CDCR at Corcoran State Prison, where the events at issue occurred. 

Plaintiff names the following individual Defendants: Correctional Officer (C/O) I. Martinez; C/O 

J. Zapata; C/O M. Cote; C/O L. Borges; Sergeant A. Macias; Sgt. R. Castro.

Plaintiff‟s claims stem from a use of force incident at CSP Corcoran. It is unclear from 

the complaint, but Plaintiff appears to allege a use of force and a disciplinary violation. Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendant Martinez authored a false disciplinary report that refers to an event that 

resulted in the use of force. Plaintiff alleges that “all the officers except Macias” subjected him 

to excessive force. (Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff alleges that the remaining Defendants “kept pushing 

their forearms and elbows into my temple, face head, and neck, for about a minute.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Macias stood by and watched, ignoring Plaintiff‟s complaints. Plaintiff 

also claims that these actions “chilled my First Amendment right to free speech and my right to 

Case 1:16-cv-00161-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/12/16 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

petition the government.” (Id.) 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Excessive Force

The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 

(1992)(citations omitted). For claims arising out of the use of excessive physical force, the issue 

is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010)(per 

curiam)(citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7)(internal quotation marks omitted); Furnace v. Sullivan, 

705 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2013). The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim 

is contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8. 

Although de minimis uses of force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use 

of force to cause harm always violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether 

or not significant injury is evident. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-8. 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Although Plaintiff alleges facts 

indicating that force was used against him, he refers to Defendants collectively. In his complaint, 

Plaintiff indicates that he previously filed a lawsuit regarding the conduct of Defendants, which 

was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Hill v. Macias, 

et. al., 1:14-cv-01425-SKO-PC. The Court notes that Plaintiff provides greater factual detail in 

his allegations in the complaint filed in the earlier action, which was dismissed with leave to 

amend. Because the Court finds the allegations in this complaint to be vague, Plaintiff‟s 

excessive force claim should be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however be granted leave to cure the 

deficiencies in an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each Defendant subjected Plaintiff to excessive 

force. Plaintiff may not name several defendants, and then allege conduct as to those defendants 

collectively. 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. 

Case 1:16-cv-00161-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/12/16 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

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). “Section 1983 

is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal 

rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 

734 (9th Cir. 2012)(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989))(internal quotation 

marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a 

link, or causal connection, between each defendant‟s actions or omissions and a violation of his 

federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 

2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).

B. First Amendment

“[A] prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his 

status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Pell 

v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974); see also Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th 

Cir. 2015); Clement v. Cal. Dep‟t of Corr., 364 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004)(per curiam); 

Ashker v. Cal. Dep‟t of Corr., 350 F.3d 917, 922 (9th Cir. 2003); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 

527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Plaintiff fails to allege what regulation, custom, policy or practice impinges on his First 

Amendment rights. A general allegation that the conduct of some individual deprived Plaintiff 

of his First Amendment speech and petition rights is insufficient to state claim for relief. 

Regulations that impinge on First Amendment rights are valid if they are reasonably related to 

legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); see also Beard v. 

Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006); Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003); Shaw v. 

Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229 (2001); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 361 (1996); Prison Legal 

News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005); Ashker, 350 F.3d at 922; Morrison v. Hall, 

261 F.3d 896, 901 (9th Cir. 2001); Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 1999)(en 

banc). A prisoner may challenge whether his speech fits within the regulation in addition to 

challenging the regulation on its face. See Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 410 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff‟s vague allegation that Defendants‟ use of force violated his First Amendment rights 

Case 1:16-cv-00161-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/12/16 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

fails to state a claim for relief. This claim should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, 

be granted leave to cure the deficiencies in an amended complaint. 

C. Disciplinary Violation

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Martinez authored a false disciplinary report. To the 

extent that Plaintiff is challenging the validity of any disciplinary process, he is advised that 

where, as here, “success in a . . . [section] 1983 damages action would implicitly question the 

validity of a conviction or duration of a sentence, the litigant must first achieve favorable 

termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge the underlying 

conviction or sentence.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004)(citing to Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997)(applying Heck

to a prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits were affected). 

Plaintiff has not alleged whether he was found guilty as a result of the disciplinary 

violation, or what his punishment was. Because the punishment imposed at a disciplinary 

hearing may affect the duration of Plaintiff‟s sentence, Plaintiff‟s due process claim may be

barred until such time as Plaintiff invalidates the result of the disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff does 

not allege that his disciplinary conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. 

This claim should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to cure this 

deficiency in an amended complaint. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff 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)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

Case 1:16-cv-00161-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/12/16 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

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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 supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed February 4, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

a first amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00161-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/12/16 Page 6 of 6