Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00598-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY LALO CORREA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00598-AWI-SAB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING THIS 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 13)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Henry Lalo Correa, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a complaint in this action on April 22, 

2013. On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and found to state a cognizable 

claim of excessive force against Defendant McMurray. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 

complaint or notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be 

cognizable in the complaint. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. 

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

Case 1:13-cv-00598-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 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

27

28

2

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[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 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

III.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

and is incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran. On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff was in the 

recreation yard along with other Northern Hispanic prisoners. (First Am. Compl. 6,1ECF No. 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:13-cv-00598-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 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

27

28

3

13.) At the time, the facility was on a modified lockdown from a previous incident that occurred 

between rival Northern and Southern Hispanic inmates. (Id. at 6-7.) 

Defendant McMurray, Sergeant Mendez, and an unidentified correctional officer were 

escorting some Southern Hispanic inmates across the yard. The Southern Hispanic inmates were 

not restrained pursuant to the program status report issued June 13, 2011. As these inmates were 

being escorted across by yard, they ran away from the escorting officers and began attacking and 

fighting with Plaintiff and other Northern Hispanics. (Id.)

Defendant McMurray and Sgt. Mendez ordered all inmates to prone out on the yard. 

Plaintiff saw his cellmate being attacked by a Southern Hispanic inmate and began wrestling 

with the Southern Hispanic inmate. Defendant McMurray ran over and began hitting Plaintiff 

with his baton causing a laceration to his skull, an abrasion to his arm, and a concussion. 

Plaintiff contends that after the incident Defendant McMurray wrote a report stating that Plaintiff 

had run into the baton when Defendant McMurray was attempting to strike the other inmate. 

(Id.) 

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant McMurray alleging excessive force and 

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and 

the Court recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

IV.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners 

from the use of excessive physical force. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (per 

curiam); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992). What is necessary to show sufficient 

harm under the Eighth Amendment depends upon the claim at issue, with the objective 

component being contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency. Hudson, 503 

U.S. at 8 (quotation marks and citations omitted). For excessive force claims, the core judicial 

inquiry is whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178 (quoting Hudson, 503 

Case 1:13-cv-00598-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 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

27

28

4

U.S. at 7) (quotation marks omitted). 

Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. 

Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (quotation marks omitted). In 

determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, courts may evaluate the 

extent of the prisoner’s injury, the need for application of force, the relationship between that 

need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, 

and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 

(quotation marks and citations omitted). 

While the absence of a serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, it 

does not end it. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm 

always violates contemporary standards of decency. Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178 (quoting 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, it is the use of force rather than the 

resulting injury which ultimately counts. Id. at 1178.

V.

DISCUSSION

In his initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was being attacked by other inmates 

while he was prone out on the ground complying with orders at the time that Defendant 

McMurray struck him with the baton. (Compl. 15, ECF No. 1.) For this reason, the complaint 

was found to state a cognizable claim. However, Plaintiff tells a much different story in his

amended complaint. 

Plaintiff contends that the report of Officer Cowart on this incident is true. Officer 

Cowart’s report indicates that she responded to two inmates who were fighting and attempted to 

strike one of the inmates in the back of the thigh, but he moved and she made contact with his 

middle back. At this time, Plaintiff ran over and began fighting with the inmates. All three of 

the inmates were tangled up together. (Incident Report, attached to Compl. at 33-34.) 

While Plaintiff alleges that Defendant McMurray’s report is false, it is not inconsistent 

with that of Officer Cowart. Defendant McMurray reports that he was attempting to strike one 

of the inmates that were fighting in the upper thigh and the inmate moved to the left causing him 

Case 1:13-cv-00598-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 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

27

28

5

to miss. However, at this time Plaintiff came from behind attempting to attack the inmate and 

the baton hit him in the head. (Incident Report, attached to Compl. at 35-36.)

It is clear that at the time that this incident occurred several inmates were fighting and

both Officer Cowart and Defendant McMurray were attempting to break up the fight. Just as 

Officer Cowart indicated that the inmates were moving causing her to miss her target, Defendant 

McMurray’s report states the same.

Plaintiff claims that during the fight Officer Cowart was striking the other inmate in the 

thighs and lower back and used “considerably less force” contending that the force used by 

Defendant McMurray was excessive. This does not show that the force used by Defendant 

McMurray was malicious and for the purpose of causing harm. 

In this instance, the inmates on the yard were engaged in an altercation and Plaintiff, 

disobeying the order to prone out, jumped in and began fighting with another inmate. While 

Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of Defendant McMurray’s attempts to break up the fight, there 

are no facts alleged to show that the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries was other than Defendant 

McMurray’s good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178. 

Further, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to state a plausible claim that he was at a 

serious risk of harm and any prison official failed to take appropriate actions in response. 

Plaintiff was injured when he ran into the fight and there is no indication that he would have 

suffered any injury had he complied with the order to prone out. Plaintiff has failed to state a 

plausible claim for excessive force against Defendant McMurray. 

VI.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend ‘shall be freely 

given when justice so requires,’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and “[l]eave to amend should be granted 

if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect,” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). However, the Court finds that the 

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

Case 1:13-cv-00598-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 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

27

28

6

amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 

1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00598-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 6 of 6