Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00079/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00079-0/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

HARVEY HERRING, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 0079 REC SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK FORM

COMPLAINT 

 Harvey Herring, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on

January 19, 2005. Plaintiff names Mike Clark, Sgt. Jack L. Hill, Darlene Rodriguez, Roger

Lowder, Correctional Officers Alejandro Ramirez, Kenneth J. Jiminez, Wheeler, Diaz, M.D.

McAlister, Sgt. Kevin Curtiss and MTA Flora Schumacher as Defendants and seeks monetary

damages.

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 8
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

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). 

“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, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on July 30, 2003, at 7:20 a.m. and during the a.m. meal at California

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Defendant attempted to give Plaintiff an “unequal amount

of food” for breakfast as to the rest of the general population. Plaintiff then requested a different

tray when Defendant Clark responded “No, take the damn tray!” Plaintiff’s hand and wrist were

on the tray slot holding his balance as he was “squatting” on his toes when he requested a

different tray, a full sized one. Defendant responded that Plaintiff would not get one and told

Plaintiff to move his arm. Plaintiff refused and again asked for a full size portion. Again

Defendant Clark told Plaintiff to move his arm from the slot and Plaintiff demanded a new tray. 

Defendant then slammed the tray slot closed three to four times on Plaintiff’s left hand which

began to bleed. Plaintiff states that Defendant noticed the blood and walked away while Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 8
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

yelled for medical assistance. Plaintiff states he received multiple cuts, abrasions, swelling and a

deep laceration to his left thumb. Defendant continued to pass out trays. Plaintiff continued to

yell for assistance when Officer Fane responded and notified Defendants Sgt. Hill and MTA

Rodriguez. 

Someone suggested plaintiff be cuffed and escorted to the yard clinic for treatment. 

Plaintiff however, informed them that he did not want to exit his cell due to the battery inflicted

on him by Defendant Clark. Plaintiff was informed that if he wanted treatment, he would have to

proceed to the yard clinic. Plaintiff was allowed to walk to the clinic without restraints and asked

what actions would be taken against Defendant Clark. When Plaintiff arrived at the clinic, he

was told to “get in the cage.” Plaintiff asked why and was told “because I said so.” Plaintiff did

not proceed to the cage and again asked why he had to when he needed medical treatment. At

this point, Defendant Rodriguez grabbed his right arm and yelled at him. Plaintiff was then

sprayed in the face with o.c. pepper spray. When Plaintiff raised his arm to shield his face, his

arm was twisted behind him and he was struck in the head. Plaintiff then states that he was

struck in the head by Defendant Ramirez, fell to the ground and felt several blows about the body

and head. Plaintiff then states that he felt a hard impact on his lower back which turned out to be

a 40mm firing weapon used by Correctional Officer Kenneth Jiminez. Plaintiff then continued to

be assaulted by Defendants Hill, Lowder and Ramirez, as well as Defendants Wheeler and

Curtiss. Defendant Wheeler also used a baton on Plaintiff’s head which punctured his cranial

area. Defendant Wheeler lifted Plaintiff from the ground and slammed him back down to the

floor where he continued to be assaulted by Defendants Hill, Lowder, Ramirez, Wheeler and

Curtiss. Plaintiff was placed in mechanical restraints and “kneed” twice in his right ear by

Defendant Correctional Officer Diaz. While in the holding cage, Defendant MTA Schumacher

asked Plaintiff what happened, took notes but provided no medical care for Plaintiff’s injuries. 

Plaintiff states that for the next two hours, he received no treatment and received no care

for the O.C. pepper spray. Plaintiff states that the shackles were placed on him too tight and cut

off his circulation and scarred his skin. Plaintiff was then “video escorted” to an administrative

segregation unit and the mechanical restraints were loosened to allow him to walk. Plaintiff was

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 8
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

then stripped down to his underwear and placed in the cell where the temperature was below

normal. Plaintiff finally received medical treatment around 2:30 p.m. and was given a wrap to

place around his thumb. Plaintiff was x-rayed and blood was drawn but that was the extent of

the medical treatment. All other injuries went untreated. 

Plaintiff was decontaminated for pepper spray at about 4:30 p.m. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Linkage Requirement

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

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 plainly 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 Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

2. Eighth Amendment Medical Claim

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference”

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 4 of 8
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

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than mere negligence, but less than

conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 

A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of

and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or

treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v.

County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hill displayed “deliberate indifference to [his] medical

need with his continuous assault.” Complaint at 10. However, Plaintiff’s allegations against

Defendant Hill are insufficient to give rise to a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for medical

care. Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations of “deliberate indifference against Defendant Lowder do

not state an Eighth Amendment medical care claim. 

Plaintiff alleges also that Defendant Schumacher, was deliberately indifferent because

although she logged in Plaintiff’s version of the events, she did not give him medical care. 

Plaintiff, however, does not allege sufficient facts to state a prima facie case against Defendant

Schumacher. 

3. Cruel and Unusual Punishment/Excessive Force

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 5 of 8
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

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishment Clause depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8

(1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and

responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 

“[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment] conditions-ofconfinement claim,” and “deliberate indifference to medical needs” violates the Eighth

Amendment “only if those needs are ‘serious.’” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect to these

types of claims, “[b]ecause routine discomfort is part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay

for their offenses against society, only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure

of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” 

Id. at 9 (quotations and citations omitted). With respect to excessive force claims, however, 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. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v.

Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard examines

de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)).

The Court has examined the allegations in the Complaint and finds that Plaintiff

sufficiently states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Clark, Hill,

Rodriguez, Lowder, Ramirez, Jiminez, Wheeler, Curtiss, Diaz, and McAlister. 

4. Negligence

A public employee is liable for injury to a prisoner “proximately caused by his negligent

or wrongful act or omission.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 844.6(d) (West 2001). “To establish

negligence, a party must prove the following: (a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of

such legal duty; (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” Hair v.

State, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2nd 871, 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (citations omitted). 

In this case, Plaintiff fails to link any of the named Defendants to an act or omission

giving rise to a claim of negligence. Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that the Defendants

were “negligent” is insufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

5. Assault & Battery

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 6 of 8
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

Under California law, “[a]n assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability,

to commit a violent injury on the person of another” and “[a] battery is any willful and unlawful

use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Penal Code § 240, 242 (West 1999); 5

B. E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts § 346 (9th ed. 1988). 

The allegations made in the Complaint sufficiently state a claim for relief for assault and

battery under state law against all Defendants named except Defendant Schumacher. 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment and Assault

and Battery claim against Defendants Clark, Hill, Rodriguez, Lowder, Ramirez, Jiminez,

Wheeler, Curtiss, Diaz, and McAlister. The Complaint, however, does not contain any other

cognizable claims for relief. As such, the Court will grant Plaintiff the opportunity to file an

Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies, or, in the alternative, notify the Court in writing

whether Plaintiff intends to proceed directly with those claims found to be cognizable. Plaintiff

should note that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint be complete in itself

without reference to prior pleadings. 

In the event Plaintiff wishes to proceed on the cognizable claims, the Court will issue

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss those claims not cognizable. The Court will then

forward Plaintiff a summons and USM-285 form to fill out and return to the Court in order to

effect service on the Defendants. Upon the return of these forms, the Court will direct the US

Marshal to initiate service of process on Defendants. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within THIRTY (30) days

from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL either:

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 7 of 8
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

Complaint and instead wishes to proceed on the cognizable claims for

relief set forth in this Order.

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/23/06 Page 8 of 8