Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HARIS,

Plaintiff, 1:05-CV-00003 ALA P

vs.

Dr. KIM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 3, 2005, plaintiff Darren Harris, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis,

filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Harris alleges in his complaint that his

Constitutional rights were violated when officials of Corcoran State Prison forced him to clean a

kitchen with “corrosive powderwash soap,” prison medical personnel denied him treatment for

his resulting injuries, and funds were stolen from his prison trust account. Mr. Harris’s initial

complaint named thirty-eight defendants. On August 13, 2007, the court ordered that service

was appropriate as to eight of the defendants, dismissing the claims against the remaining

defendants without prejudice. Mr. Harris filed an amended complaint on November 5, 2007, 

naming defendants Swarm, Cisneros, Tiernan, Rush, Hobbs, Jones, Cruz, Lowden, Smooth,

Brook, Skribner, Williams, Grannis, Castro, Molina, Clark, Klarich, Kim, Greaves, Castillo,

Crawford, Wortmen, and Olivarria. Mr. Harris names all defendants in both their individual and 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 6
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

official capacities.

I

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court is obligated to “review, before docketing . . . or . . .

as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and to

“dismiss . . . any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b). This Court must therefore

determine whether service is proper as to each of the numerous defendants named in Mr. Harris'

complaint. The Court must also determine, with respect to each defendant, whether the

complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim.

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person action under color of state law; and (2) that the

conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter,

466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th

Cir.1989)). “A person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of 1983, if [that person] does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative

acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir.1978)). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and a person can only be

subject to § 1983 liability for the acts of others “[i]n limited circumstances.” Id. “[A] supervisor

is liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates, ‘if the supervisor participated in or

directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.’ “ Id. (quoting

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

/////

II

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 6
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

As noted above, the court has previously concluded that the claims against Castro,

Molina, Olivarria, Williams, Clark, Kim, Klarich, and Lowden have been sufficiently pled. This

section will only discuss the merits of the claims made against the remaining defendants named

in claim one.

3

This court concluded in its August 13, 2007 order that Mr. Harris's complaint adequately

alleges claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against named defendants

Olivarria, Castro, Molina, Williams, Clark, Kim, Klarich, and Lowden. This court reasoned: 

It specifies particular actions allegedly committed by each of those defendants, which

allegedly deprived Mr. Harris of federal Constitutional rights. Specifically, Mr. Harris

asserts that defendants Olivarria, Castro, Molina, Williams, and Clark ordered him to

clean the kitchen with the corrosive soap, that Dr. Kim refused to provide him with

needed medical treatment, that defendant Lowden intentionally interfered with certain

disciplinary proceedings against him and caused him to be reassigned to a dangerous

assignment, and that Dr. Klarich falsified information about his medical condition. If the

allegations of the complaint are proven, Mr. Harris has a reasonable opportunity to

prevail on the merits of this action as to those defendants. 

Accordingly, Mr. Harris has sufficiently pled causes of action against defendants Castro,

Molina, Olivarria, Williams, Clark, Kim, Klarich, and Lowden.

III

Next, the court must determine whether Mr. Harris’s amended complaint specifies

particular actions allegedly committed by each of the defendants, which deprived Mr. Harris of

federal Constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. The court will address, with respect

to each defendant, whether the amended complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim.1

 

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman,

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner's claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the

level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 6
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

the ‘minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with

deliberate indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)

(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). 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.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

(1994). Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment,” or in the manner “in which prison physicians

provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on

other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to

further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison

Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)).

Mr. Harris asserts that defendants Swarm (Compl. at ¶ ¶ 43-49, 54, 66), Cisneros (Compl.

at ¶ ¶ 68-87) , Hobbs (Compl. at ¶ ¶ 81), Cruz (Compl. at ¶ ¶ 81, 133-35), Rush (Compl. at ¶ ¶

81, 105-08), Tiernan (Compl. at ¶ ¶ 81, 98-104), and Jones (Compl. at ¶ ¶ 148-59) ordered him

to clean the kitchen with corrosive soap, causing him to incur burn injuries. Mr. Harris further

alleges that these defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, as well as

future injuries that may have occurred. Compl. at ¶ 209. If these allegations are proved, Mr.

Harris has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action as to defendants

Swarm, Cisneros, Hobbs, Cruz, Rush, Tiernan, and Jones. 

Mr. Harris also alleges that Smooth (Compl. at ¶ 169), Brook (Compl. at ¶ 176) ,

Skribner (Compl. at ¶ 177), and Grannis (Compl. at ¶ ¶ 178-79) violated his Eighth Amendment

rights because they knew that Mr. Harris faced substantial risk of harm by being repeatedly

exposed to the “powerwash.” Mr. Harris further alleges that these defendants disregarded that

risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Compl. at ¶ 215. Specifically, Mr. Harris

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

claims that the defendants had knowledge of Mr. Harris’s Inmate/Parolee Appeal form (“CDC

602"), which sets forth Mr. Harris’s grievances. In light of the allegations in the amended

complaint, Mr. Harris has sufficiently pled Eighth Amendment claims against Smooth, Skribner,

Brook, and Grannis.

Mr. Harris also alleges that Doctor Greaves refused to provide Mr. Harris with the

appropriate medical treatment. Compl. at ¶ 199-203. He claims that he was denied all medical

care since November 3, 2002. Compl at 13. As a result, Mr. Harris claims that he suffered

physical and psychological injuries. Compl. at 13. Mr. Harris claims that Doctor Greaves acted

with deliberate indifference to Mr. Harris’s medical needs. Compl. at ¶ 217. Therefore, Mr.

Harris’s amended complaint sufficiently pleads a claim against Doctor Greaves.

Accordingly, Mr. Harris has sufficiently plead Eighth Amendment violations against the

following defendants: Greaves, Smooth, Brook, Skribner, Grannis. Swarm, Cisneros, Hobbs,

Cruz, Rush, Tiernan, and Jones. 

III

Mr. Harris fails to allege that defendants Castillo, Wortmen, or Crawford did any

affirmative act, participated in any affirmative act, or omitted to perform any act they were

legally required to do, so as to cause a deprivation of his constitutional rights. The amended

complaint also fails to allege that any of those defendants participated in or directed violations of

Mr. Harris' rights, or knew of violations but failed to prevent them. The only allegations

pertaining to those defendants are so vague and conclusory as not to provide fair notice of the

basis of Mr. Harris's claims against them. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (“all the

[Federal] Rules [of Civil Procedure] require is ‘a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will

give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.”). Consequently, the Court dismisses Mr. Harris' amended complaint against those

defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, but permits Mr. Harris

leave to amend.

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/06/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may proceed against defendants:

a. Greaves

b. Smooth

c. Brook

d. Skribner

e. Grannis

f. Swarm

g. Cisneros

h. Hobbs

i. Cruz

j. Rush

k. Tiernan

h. Jones. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Crawford, Wortmen, and Castillo are dismissed

for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty-five (35)

days from the date of service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in

these defendants being dismissed from this action; and

3. Upon filing an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefore, the

court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants.

/////

Dated: December 5, 2007

/s/ Arthur Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/06/07 Page 6 of 6