Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01868/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01868-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

JESSE SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLIFF ALLENBY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01868-DAD-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

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

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s first amended 

complaint, filed February 29, 2016. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by individuals 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 individual 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).

Case 1:15-cv-01868-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 05/20/16 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

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, 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). 

Plaintiffs in 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

The February 29, 2016, first amended complaint is filed in response to the February 1, 

2016, order dismissing the original compliant and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended 

complaint. Plaintiff is a civil detainee in the custody of the Department of State Hospitals at 

Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff brings this action against former Director of State Hospitals 

Cliff Allenby. 

In the order dismissing the original complaint, the Court noted that Plaintiff alleged that

he is an African American male, and as such, is identified as a member of a class of individuals 

who are highly susceptible to Valley Fever. Plaintiff alleged Defendants knowingly subjected 

him to Valley Fever, such that it constituted a violation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional rights. In his 

first amended complaint, Plaintiff simply alleges that Defendant has subjected him to a 

Case 1:15-cv-01868-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 05/20/16 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

dangerous condition due to the presence of Valley Fever spores. Plaintiff argues that the original 

complaint stated a claim for relief “because the Ninth Circuit has affirmed there is good claims 

against defendant Allenby.” (ECF No. 8 at 5.) Plaintiff refers the Court to unpublished 

decisions from the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff does not allege any new or different facts in the first

amended complaint. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Valley Fever

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to treatment more considerable than that afforded 

pretrial detainees or convicted criminals. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Plaintiff‟s right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the 

substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. Romero, 457 U.S. 307, 315 

(1982). 

A determination whether Plaintiff‟s rights were violated requires “balancing of his liberty 

interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. Plaintiff is “entitled 

to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires only that courts ensure that 

professional judgment was exercised. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22. A “decision, if made by a 

professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision by the 

professional is such that a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or 

standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such 

a judgment.” Id. at 322-23; compare Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232-1243-

44 (9th Cir. 2010)(rejecting the Youngberg standard and applying the deliberate indifference 

standard to a pretrial detainee‟s right to medical care, and noting that pretrial detainees, who are 

confined to ensure presence at trial, are not similarly situated to those who are civilly 

committed). The professional judgment standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that 

required in ordinary tort cases for a finding of conscious indifference amounting to gross 

negligence.” Ammons v. Washington Dep‟t of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th 

Case 1:15-cv-01868-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 05/20/16 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

Cir. 2011), 132 S. Ct. 2379 (2012).

The Court finds that Plaintiff‟s dangerous condition claim fails for two reasons. First, the 

claim is premised on Coalinga State Hospital being so inherently dangerous due to the presence 

of Valley Fever spores in the soil that his transfer there amounts to a constitutional violation. No 

court has held that exposure to Valley Fever spores presents an excessive risk to inmate health.” 

King v. Avenal State Prison, 2009 WL 546212, 4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009); see also Tholmer v. 

Yates, 2009 WL 174162, 3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2009)(“To the extent Plaintiff seeks to raise a 

challenge to the general conditions of confinement at Coalinga State Hospital, Plaintiff fails to 

come forward with evidence that [the Warden] is responsible for the conditions of which 

Plaintiff complains.”) More recently, in addressing a claim that CDCR officials are responsible 

for the contraction of valley fever by knowingly housing an African American inmate with a 

history of asthma in an endemic area, it has been held that “unless there is something about a 

prisoner‟s conditions of confinement that raises the risk of exposure substantially above the risk 

experienced by the surrounding communities, it cannot be reasoned that the prisoner is 

involuntarily exposed to a risk that society would not tolerate.” Hines v. Yousseff, 2015 WL 

164215, *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015). Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief based on mere

exposure to valley fever.

Further, even assuming transfer to Coalinga State Hospital might suffice to underpin a 

constitutional claim, Plaintiff‟s allegations regarding the named Defendant‟s involvement 

remains speculative at best. Section 1983 does not permit respondeat superior, or vicarious, 

liability and Plaintiff‟s claim must be premised on Defendant‟s personal involvement or other 

specific causal connection; speculative allegations regarding knowledge, actions, and/or 

omissions do not suffice. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013). For 

these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under section 1983. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

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

be granted. Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standard and the deficiencies 

Case 1:15-cv-01868-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 05/20/16 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

in his pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint is 

largely identical to the original complaint. Plaintiff does not allege any new or different facts.

Plaintiff indicates his disagreement with the Court‟s ruling that the original complaint failed to 

state a claim for relief. Plaintiff‟s sole allegation is that his civil rights are being violated because 

he is housed in an area where valley fever spores are present in the soil. Based upon the 

allegations in Plaintiff‟s original and first amended complaint, the Court is persuaded that 

Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would support a claim for deliberate 

indifference by Defendant Allenby, and further amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. 

CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when 

amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds 

that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for 

Plaintiff‟s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of Title 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within 

thirty (30) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d 

F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01868-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 5