Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02608/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02608-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERLAN LYNELL DICEY,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2608-WBS-JFM (PC)

vs.

W. R. HARRISON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed April 9,

2009, and is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

STANDARDS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides for motions to

dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court must accept as

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197 

(2007), and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes,

416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint

Case 2:08-cv-02608-JAM-JFM Document 42 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

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 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). However, “[s]pecific facts are not

necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. at 2200

(quoting Bell Atlantic at 554, in turn quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). 

ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains the following allegations. On March 29,

2007, plaintiff was the victim of an assault by another inmate. After correctional officers used

pepper spray and batons to remove the assailant from plaintiff, plaintiff was ordered to turn over

and “prone out.” Amended Complaint, filed April 9, 2009, at 5. Plaintiff complied with the

order. Immediately thereafter, defendant Harrison “stated ‘Oh this is Dicey’” and then sprayed

pepper spray directly into plaintiff’s face and head area. Plaintiff yelled to defendant Harrison as

loud as he could to please stop because plaintiff has asthma and couldn’t breathe. Defendant

Harrison told plaintiff to shut up. Plaintiff became nauseated. Defendant Harrison told plaintiff

that if he spit again, defendant Harrison would spray him again. Plaintiff explained that if he spit

or threw up it would be an accident because he couldn’t breathe. Defendant Harrison responded

that if plaintiff spit again it would be an accident that defendant Harrison sprayed him. 

Plaintiff was then escorted to the medical clinic. Defendant Harrison continued to

taunt him. Plaintiff was complaining to a correctional sergeant and defendant Pfadt that he

couldn’t see and felt like he was on fire, and he asked to be decontaminated. Defendant Harrison

told plaintiff to stop complaining. About twenty minutes after plaintiff was placed in a holding

cell he was inadequately decontaminated, even though he informed defendants that he suffers

from asthma.

Plaintiff has been subjected to “reprisals, harrassments [sic] and intimidation” by

defendant Harrison and other correctional officers for using the administrative grievance process. 

Case 2:08-cv-02608-JAM-JFM Document 42 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Amended Complaint at 7. Plaintiff suffered serious eye and skin injuries as a result of the spray

and now has to wear glasses. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants Harrison and Pfadt seek dismissal of this action on the ground that

plaintiff has not alleged facts which support a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment

through use of excessive force. 

“When prison officials use excessive force against prisoners, they violate the

inmates’ Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.” Clement v.

Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2002). “Force does not amount to a constitutional violation

in this respect if it is applied in a good faith effort to restore discipline and order and not

‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” Id. (quoting Whitley v.

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). Defendants contend that

plaintiff has not alleged any facts to support a claim of excessive force and that the allegations of

the amended complaint and the documents appended thereto “fully support the conclusion that

any alleged use of force was entirely appropriate under the circumstances and was applied in a

good faith effort to restore discipline.” Motion to Dismiss, filed September 1, 2009, at 7. 

Defendants’ contention is without merit.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Harrison sprayed him in the face with pepper spray

after the altercation was over and plaintiff was lying prone on the ground. Plaintiff also alleges

that defendant Harrison recognized plaintiff and identified him by name before he sprayed

plaintiff in the head and face with pepper spray. These allegations are sufficient to state a

cognizable claim of excessive force against defendant Harrison, and the court will recommend

that the motion to dismiss be denied as to defendant Harrison.

 Plaintiff does not raise an excessive force claim against defendant Pfadt. Plaintiff

claims that defendant Pfadt violated plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment by acting

with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical need for adequate and timely

Case 2:08-cv-02608-JAM-JFM Document 42 Filed 05/19/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

decontamination after he was pepper sprayed by defendant Harrison. Defendant Pfadt has not

sought dismissal of this claim, and, in any event, the amended complaint states a cognizable

claim for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs against both defendant

Harrison and defendant Pfadt.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ September 1, 2009 motion to dismiss be denied; and

2. Defendants be directed to answer the amended complaint within ten days from

the date of any order by the district court adopting these findings and recommendations.

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, any party 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.” Any response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

parties are 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: May 18, 2010.

12

dice2608.mtd

Case 2:08-cv-02608-JAM-JFM Document 42 Filed 05/19/10 Page 4 of 4