Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04258/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIBBOLETH E. ADELL, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF VICKERS, food service cook;

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4258 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Sibboleth E. Adell, Jr., currently an inmate at the Contra Costa County Jail's West County

Detention Facility in Richmond, California, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. His complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Adell alleges that he has food allergies to meat and dairy products that

jail staff have refused to accommodate. He alleges that custodial staff have been made aware

of his special dietary needs by the medical department. Nonetheless, deputies Hayes, Sibbitt,

and Burns allegedly made no effort to ensure that he received a balanced meal, despite his

complaints to them. He further alleges that he filed a grievance with the kitchen staff but

received no response. A captain allegedly responded to another grievance by stating that the

matter should be taken care of and he would not be subjected to a vegetarian diet. Jeff Vickers,

the food services director, is named as a defendant. 

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Adell did not allege whether he was a pretrial detainee or was a convict at the time of the

incidents alleged in his complaint. His status matters because it affects the constitutional

provision under which his claims arise: a pretrial detainee's claims about conditions of

confinement arise under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, while a convict's

claims arise under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Even though

pretrial detainees' claims arise under the Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment serves as

a benchmark for evaluating those claims. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir.

1996). In their dispositive motion, defendants should identify whether Adell was a pretrial

detainee or a convict at the time of the alleged incidents.

2

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment covers not only

the use of force on prisoners but also sets a minimum level for prison conditions, i.e., they may

not be so bad that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Adequate food is a basic

human need protected by the Eighth Amendment. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th

Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). The Eighth Amendment requires only that

prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically

pleasing. See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (temporary diet of

Nutraloaf, which exceeds inmate's daily nutritional requirements, does not violate 8th

Amendment).1

 

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Liberally construed, the complaint states a claim for relief for an Eighth Amendment

violation (or Fourteenth Amendment violation, if Adell was a pretrial detainee) in alleging that

jail staff refuse to provide meals that accommodate Adell's allergies to beef and dairy products.

Although Adell allegedly alerted custodial and food service staff to his dietary needs, he was

denied meals on some occasions and on other occasions was served meals "loaded with cheese,"

Complaint, p. 3, that did not accommodate his dietary needs. Liberally construed, the complaint

adequately links custodial deputies Hayes, Sibbitt, and Burns as well as food service director Jeff

Vickers to the claim. 

Contra Costa County Sheriff Rupf is named as a defendant. The complaint does not

allege that he had any personal involvement with Adell's problem and apparently was named as

a defendant because he is in charge of the jail. There is no respondeat superior liability under

Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions

of an employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal

participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, Sheriff Rupf is dismissed without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants

Hayes, Sibbitt, Burns and Vickers for an Eighth Amendment violation (or a Fourteenth

Amendment violation if Adell was a pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged incidents). The

other defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of all the documents in

the case file upon defendants, all of whom allegedly work at the West County Detention Facility

in Richmond, California: (1) Contra Costa County Sheriff's deputy J. Hayes, (2) Contra Costa

County Sheriff's deputy Sibbitt, (3) Contra Costa County Sheriff's deputy Burns, and (4) food

service director Jeff Vickers.

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than March 28, 2008, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than May 2, 2008. Plaintiff

must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as he prepares

his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. [¶] 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants'

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. (See Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than May 23, 2008.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 

7. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 5 of 5