Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00150/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00150-1/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEREMIAH HANKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0150 TLN SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a civil detainee1

 proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s complaint for screening and plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, this court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”), finds plaintiff states a potentially cognizable claim against defendant 

Williams, and finds plaintiff states no other claims cognizable under §1983. Plaintiff will be 

given the option of proceeding immediately on his claim against Williams or filing an amended 

complaint. 

//// 

//// 

1

 Plaintiff filed a motion to have this case re-classified as a non-prisoner civil rights case because 

he has been civilly committed. (ECF No. 6.) This court granted that motion. (Sept. 23, 2024 

Order; ECF No. 8.) Therefore, this court considers plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and his complaint under the standards for non-prisoners. 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 1 of 10
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 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SCREENING 

I. Legal Standards 

Plaintiff’s IFP application makes the financial showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for IFP status does 

not complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 

dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). Courts must review the complaint that initiates the action and perform 

this screening function. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See id. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton 

Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 10
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 

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 

to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 

II. Linkage Requirement 

Section 1983, enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 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. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by 

alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s “personal involvement in the constitutional 

deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a series of acts by others” or “knowingly 

refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which [the defendant] knew or reasonably should 

have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

III. Discussion 

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

 Plaintiff is detained at Napa State Hospital. He complains of conduct that occurred 

between 2015 and 2020 when he was an inmate at the Sacramento County Jail (“Jail”). Plaintiff 

identifies the following defendants: (1) Sacramento County; (2) Psychiatrist Gregory Sokolov; 

(3) Psychiatrist Williams; (4) Lynn Delgado, Supervisor for Jail Psych Services (“JPS”); (5) 

Jason Roof, Director of JPS; (6) A. Dhillon, L.C.S.W. for JPS; (7) Stephanie B., an employee for 

JPS; and (8) Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Hancock. 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 3 of 10
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 

 Plaintiff alleges the following. Between 2015 and 2020, defendant Williams prescribed 

Zyprexa for plaintiff. Plaintiff asked for, but was denied, a side-effects sheet. Plaintiff was 

unaware that Zyprexa is known to cause Type 2 Diabetes, gynecomastia, and male breast 

enlargement, all of which plaintiff was diagnosed with between 2017 and 2020. 

Plaintiff attempted to file grievances regarding these issues but was told they were 

illegible or had been discarded. In December 2021, the Jail opened plaintiff’s legal mail outside 

his presence and attempted to coerce plaintiff to engage in arbitration, apparently regarding his 

grievance, without counsel. Plaintiff contends the Jail has a history of obstructing inmates from 

pursuing legal remedies. 

 Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction requiring the Jail to 

undergo reforms regarding its grievance and informed consent policies. 

B. Does Plaintiff State Claims for Relief under Section 1983? 

 As set forth above, to state a claim against a defendant, plaintiff must explain just what 

that defendant did, or failed to do, that violated his rights. Plaintiff must allege facts showing a 

connection between each defendant and the constitutional injury or injuries plaintiff claims to 

have suffered. See Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207-08. The only defendants plaintiff mentions by name 

in the body of the complaint are Dr. Williams and Sacramento County. Plaintiff fails to allege 

any conduct by, and therefore any claims for relief against, the other defendants. 

It appears that plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim that Williams violated plaintiff’s 

due process rights by failing to provide plaintiff with information about the potential side effects 

of Zyprexa. Plaintiff is further alleging that Sacramento County is liable for Williams’ conduct. 

Plaintiff also mentions a violation of the right to confidentiality of his legal mail and an 

obstruction of his right of access to the courts due to the mishandling of his grievances. 

1. Fourteenth Amendment Claim re Informed Consent 

The Ninth Circuit has held that “the Fourteenth Amendment substantively protects a 

person’s rights to be free from unjustified intrusions to the body, to refuse unwanted medical 

treatment and to receive sufficient information to exercise these rights intelligently.” Benson v. 

Terhune, 304 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). In White v. Napoleon, which the 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 4 of 10
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 

Ninth Circuit cited favorably in Benson, 304 F.3d at 884, the Third Circuit held that “[p]risoners 

have a right to such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed decision to 

accept or reject proposed [medical] treatment, as well as a reasonable explanation of the viable 

alternative treatments that can be made available in a prison setting.” 897 F.2d 103, 113 (3d Cir. 

1990); see also Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 250 (2d Cir. 2006) (prisoners have “a liberty 

interest in receiving such information as a reasonable patient would require in order to make an 

informed decision as to whether to accept or reject proposed medical treatment”) (citing White, 

897 F.2d at 113)). 

 Plaintiff alleges Williams denied plaintiff’s request for a description of the side effects of 

Zyprexa. While plaintiff does not explicitly state that he would have refused Zyprexa had he 

known the side effects, this court is required to liberally construe plaintiff’s allegations and finds 

plaintiff’s complaint minimally sufficient to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim against 

Williams. 

2. County’s Liability 

 Plaintiff generally states Williams was acting as an “agent” of the County and that the 

County has a history of preventing inmates from completing the grievance process. To the extent 

plaintiff is contending the County is responsible for all defendants’ actions, that contention is 

insufficient to state a claim. The County and 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 plaintiff must show “a sufficient 

causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” 

Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207 (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). 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). 

 To the extent plaintiff is alleging the County had a policy or practice that violated his 

rights, those allegations are insufficient as well. Under Monell, “[a] government entity may not 

be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless a policy, practice, or custom of the entity can be 

shown to be a moving force behind a violation of constitutional rights.” Dougherty v. City of 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 5 of 10
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 

Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). “[A] policy is ‘a 

deliberate choice to follow a course of action ... made from among various alternatives by the 

official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in 

question.’” Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(quoting Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 (1986)). “A ‘custom’ for purposes of 

municipal liability is a ‘widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or 

express municipal policy, is so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with 

the force of law.’” Young v. City of Visalia, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1147 (E.D. Cal. 2009) 

(quoting City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988)). “Liability for improper 

custom may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents; it must be founded upon practices 

of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a traditional 

method of carrying out policy.” Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). After 

establishing one of the methods of liability, “a plaintiff must also show that the circumstance was 

(1) the cause in fact and (2) the proximate cause of the constitutional deprivation.” Id. 

3. Possible Other Claims 

If plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim that a defendant or defendants violated his rights 

when they opened his legal mail, plaintiff must allege facts showing that the mail was in fact legal 

mail because it was from an attorney or potential attorney. If plaintiff is attempting to challenge 

the grievance procedures, plaintiff is advised that he is not entitled to a specific grievance 

procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in 

processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance procedure) (citing Mann v. 

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). “[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right 

only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. 

Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982); see also Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) 

(existence of grievance procedure confers no liberty interest on prisoner). “Hence, it does not 

give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the 

Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez, 568 F. Supp. at 10; Jones v. Corizon Health, No. 1:16-cv-1055-

SKO (PC), 2017 WL 2225075, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2017). 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 6 of 10
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 

7 

CONCLUSION 

 Above, this court finds plaintiff states a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim for relief 

against defendant Williams. This court further finds plaintiff states no other claims. Plaintiff has 

a choice. Plaintiff may proceed immediately on his claim against Williams or plaintiff may 

amend the complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on his claim against Williams, plaintiff will 

voluntarily dismiss all other claims and defendants. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, plaintiff must address the problems with 

his complaint that are explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must 

clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his legal rights. 

The court is not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s allegations are as to each 

named defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must include it in the body of the 

complaint. The allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint so defendants have fair 

notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed 

fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each 

claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207-08 (a person deprives another of a constitutional right if that person was 

personally involved in the deprivation, set in motion acts by others that resulted in the 

deprivation, or refused to terminate acts by others that resulted in the deprivation). “Vague and 

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. 

Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 7 of 10
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 

8 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate brevity. Plaintiff’s claims must be set 

forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 

534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which 

was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. However, “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is 

plausible when the plaintiff includes facts “that allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 

has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 

follows: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 10) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim against 

defendant Williams. 

3. Plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 

4. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his potentially cognizable claim set out above or he 

may choose to amend his complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on his potentially cognizable 

claim in the complaint, he shall voluntarily dismiss his other claims and defendants. 

5. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 

attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 8 of 10
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 

9 

6. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 4, 2024 

 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 9 of 10
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 

JEREMIAH HANKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0150 TLN SCR P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Fourteenth Amendment claim against 

defendant Williams. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the 

complaint he is voluntarily dismissing all other claims and defendants. 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint. 

DATED:______________________ 

 ____________________________________ 

 Jeremiah Hankins, Plaintiff 

Case 2:24-cv-00150-TLN-SCR Document 11 Filed 11/05/24 Page 10 of 10