Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01334-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY GRISSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1334 TLN DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-01334-TLN-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 

U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 

738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 

doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at 

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

/////

Case 2:15-cv-01334-TLN-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

DISCUSSION

In his complaint pending before the court, plaintiff has identified Johnson & Johnson as 

the sole defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Johnson & Johnson distributed the psychotropic 

medication Risperdal to state prisons. According to plaintiff, he now suffers from gynecomastia 

because of his ingestion of that medication. Plaintiff claims that Johnson & Johnson has violated 

his rights under the Eighth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment and 

requests damages. (Compl. at 3 & 5-6.)

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. As an initial matter, under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff has a right to be free from violations of constitutional guarantees by 

those acting under color of state law, but plaintiff has no right to be free from infliction of such 

harm by private actors. See Van Ort v. Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). In this case,

plaintiff has not alleged any facts to indicate that Johnson & Johnson was acting under color of 

state law. Moreover, even if plaintiff could somehow establish that Johnson & Johnson is a state 

actor, plaintiff has not alleged any violation of his federal constitutional rights. Specifically, 

plaintiff has not alleged any facts to indicate that Johnson & Johnson was deliberately indifferent 

to plaintiff’s serious medical needs or that Johnson & Johnson was even aware of plaintiff or his 

medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). At most, plaintiff has alleged that 

Johnson & Johnson may have been negligent in distributing Risperdal to state prisons. It is well 

established, however, that “[m]ere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not 

support [a] cause of action” under the Eighth Amendment. Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 

F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). 

Case 2:15-cv-01334-TLN-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Where, as here, it is clear that granting plaintiff leave to amend his complaint would be 

futile, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, 

300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (there is no need to prolong the litigation by permitting 

further amendment where the “basic flaw” in the underlying facts as alleged cannot be cured by 

amendment); Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any 

amendment would be futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further 

amendment.”). 

OTHER MATTERS

Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. The 

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to 

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. In light of the findings and recommendations herein, the court does not find the required 

exceptional circumstances. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 

6) is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied; and

2. This action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

Case 2:15-cv-01334-TLN-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 5
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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: October 8, 2015

DAD:9

gris1334.56

Case 2:15-cv-01334-TLN-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 5