Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00221/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00221-6/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

KATHLEEN O’BRIAN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00221-GSA-PC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

(Doc. 20.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

I. BACKGROUND

Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 

20, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 

in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. 

(Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7.) The 

court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order on June 25, 2014, requiring 

Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the court that he is willing to 

Case 1:14-cv-00221-GSA Document 21 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

proceed on the excessive force claim found cognizable by the court in the First Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. 16.) On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 

17.) The court screened the Second Amended Complaint and issued an order on April 16, 

2015, dismissing the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to 

amend. (Doc. 19.) On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint, which is 

now before the court for screening. (Doc. 20.)

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The in forma pauperis statute provides that Athe 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). “Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard 

applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 

actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A 

complaint must contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief . . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the 

defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” 

Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts Aare not required to 

indulge unwarranted inferences,@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 

2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. However, “the liberal pleading standard 

. . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 

(1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00221-GSA Document 21 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

III. SUMMARY OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLANT

Plaintiff is presently housed at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California, in the 

custody of the California Department of Mental Health, where the events at issue in the Third

Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names sole defendant Kathleen O’Brian 

(“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow, in their entirety (sic).

“Now comes plaintiffs secound ameanded complaint on or about november 

20014 durring a forced court yard brake plaintiff and several outher patients was 

forced into one of the small court yards while our houseing unit was being 

searched while on the yard the defeendant started to call plaintiff a bastard 

knoweing full well that the defendant was degradeing plaintiffs deceased 

mouther the defenndant knew as well that he posesses a sevear mental dissorder 

regarding his mouther therefore she delibeartly used that percisse title regarding 

plaintiffs moutherwhat the defendant did was use verbal force to invoke hostial 

form of excessive force which is punishable in montiary and injunctiuve relif as 

stated in the originail complaint now plaintiff is fully awaire that he is not too 

use or copy parts of amended complaints and to the best of his knalage he has 

not.” 

(Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 20 at 1.)

IV. PLAINTIFF’S VERBAL HARASSMENT CLAIM

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. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal 

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the 

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal 

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id. 

Plaintiff claims that the Defendant called him names, insulting Plaintiff’s mother, which 

caused Plaintiff mental distress. Mere verbal harassment or abuse alone is not sufficient to 

state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 

136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987); accord Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 1:14-cv-00221-GSA Document 21 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for verbal harassment. Plaintiff also fails to state any 

other cognizable claims against the Defendant in the Third Amended Complaint.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Third Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable 

claims upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff 

leave to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the Court. The Court finds that the 

deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore further 

leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this action shall be dismissed in its entirety, with 

prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; and

2. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00221-GSA Document 21 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 4