Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01074/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01074-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

ANTONIO GALEANA FLORES,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1074 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING 

 COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

CORRECTIONAL CORP. OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

rights action. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on October 11, 2005, amended complaint. 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at the

Correctional Institution at California City, brings this civil rights action

against Defendant Correctional Corporation of America, along with

individual defendants. Plaintiff sets forth claims of sexual harassment,

violation of privacy, denial of rehabilitative programs and deliberate

indifference to his safety. 

Plaintiff’s privacy claim stems from his allegation that female

correctional officers are able to view him while in the shower. The Ninth

Case 1:05-cv-01074-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Circuit has recognized that prisoners retain a limited right to bodily

privacy grounded in the Fourth Amendment. Michenfelder v. Sumner,

860 F.2d 328, 333 (9 Cir. 1988). However, limitations on the exercise of a th

prisoner’s constitutional rights arise both from the fact of incarceration

and from valid penological objectives. Id. at 331 (citing O’Lone v. Estate

of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987)). As such, a rational relationship test to

determine whether the impingement on an inmate’s right to privacy claim

must be analyzed using a rational relationship test to determine whether

the impingement on an inmate’s right to privacy is “reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests.” Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d at

333-34 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)).

The Ninth Circuit has held that the assignment of guards to

positions that require only “infrequent and casual observation” of

prisoners of the opposite sex, or “observation at a distance,” that is

reasonably related to prison needs is not so degrading as to warrant

court interference. Id. (finding no constitutional violation where female

correctional officers were assigned shower duty and could view inmates

being strip searched); Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 494 (9 Cir. th

1985)(permitting female officers to view male prisoners while disrobing,

showering, and using toilet facilities where the officer’s view of the

prisoners was infrequent and casual); compare Sepulveda v. Ramirez, 967

F.2d 1413 (9 Cir. 1992)(finding violation of parolee’s constitutional rights th

where male parole officer walked into bathroom stall where female

parolee was urinating as part of the required drug test). Assuming

defendants’ conduct is as alleged, plaintiff has not suffered a

Case 1:05-cv-01074-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 5
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

constitutional deprivation. This claim must therefore be dismissed.

As to Plaintiff’s claim of sexual harassment, he has alleged

facts that state a claim for relief, but he does not identify the individuals

involved. The Ninth Circuit has held that sexual harassment can

constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, but not in a case without

physical contact. Bowie v. California Dept. of Corrections, 99 F.3d 1145

(9 Cir. 1991), citing Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9 Cir. 1993);

th th

Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 75 th

(1991). Plaintiff has alleged that he was touched “in his genitalias,” but

he does not identify the individuals involved. In order to serve the

individuals involved, Plaintiff must identify them.

Plaintiff claims that he is not offered any rehabilitative or

leisure activity. “Idleness and the lack of [vocational and rehabilitative]

programs does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Hoptowit v. Ray,

682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9 Cir. 1982); see also Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801

th

F.2d 1080, 1106-08 (9 Cir. 1986). This claim therefore fails. th

Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference stems from injuries

that he suffered as a result of a fall on the soccer field. Plaintiff alleges

that as a result of the condition of the field, he was scratched over 23

times due to falls. The Eighth Amendment provides that “cruel and

unusual punishment [shall not be] inflicted.” “An Eighth Amendment

claim that a prison official has deprived inmates of humane conditions of

confinement must meet two requirements, one objective and the other

subjective.” Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9 Cir.) cert. denied, 514

th

U.S. 1065, (1995). 

Case 1:05-cv-01074-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 5
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 objective requirement is met if the prison official’s acts or

omissions deprived a prisoner of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities.’” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). To

satisfy the subjective prong, a plaintiff must show more than mere

inadvertence or negligence. Neither negligence nor gross negligence will

constitute deliberate indifference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833, & n. 4; Estelle

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The Farmer court concluded that

“subjective recklesness as used in the criminal law is a familiar and

workable standard that is consistent with the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause” and adopted this as the test for deliberate

indifference under the Eighth Amendment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839-40.

Here, Plaintiff alleges, at most, negligence, which fails to state

a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff must allege

facts indicating that a named defendant knew of and disregarded a

serious risk to Plaintiff’s safety, resulting in more than de minimis injury

to Plaintiff. The court finds thea the allegations in plaintiff's

amended

 complaint vague fail to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. 

The complaint must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be

granted leave to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to

amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the

complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved. 

Case 1:05-cv-01074-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/07 Page 4 of 5
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

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to

a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint

complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any

function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant

must be sufficiently alleged. 

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

1. Plaintiff's complaint first amended complaint is dismissed;

and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of

this order to file a second amended complaint that complies with the

requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended

Complaint." Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01074-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/07 Page 5 of 5