Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00362/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00362-1/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

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

JOSEPH E. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A. GONZALES, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-00362-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 7)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Joseph Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 16, 2014, the 

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed 

on January 12, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. 

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

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00362-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 5
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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 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). 

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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

I was Brutally Handcuffed and Forced in a cell By C. Laita, as Sergeant A. 

Gonzales looked on and did not intervene, I deserve to Be protected from officers 

and inmates. I informed all officers that I had contact with that day not to house 

me with that inmate, but I Received injuries From Both that day. Inmate McClish 

Beat me up in the cell.

(ECF No. 7, p. 3.) 

Plaintiff further alleges:

I informed all officers C. Laita and A. Gonzales “I am non-affiliated with any 

Gangs (Plus it is in my Bed Card). I was forced (literally) to live with a known 

“Blood” gang member, who ended up harming me. 

(ECF No. 7, p. 4.) 

Case 1:14-cv-00362-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Laita and Gonzales violated his right to be free from 

cruel and unusual punishments and his right to freedom of association. 

III. Discussion

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 

As noted above, 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.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 

not. Id; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is short, but does not set forth sufficient facts to state 

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff’s complaint contains disjointed and 

conclusory statements. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint for a second time, he should 

briefly and clearly state the facts giving rise to his claims for relief against the named defendants.

B. Eighth Amendment – Excessive Force

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation 

of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is ... whether force was 

applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to 

cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). “In 

determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be proper to 

evaluate 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.” Id. at 7 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

Plaintiff alleges that he was brutally handcuffed and forced into his cell by Defendant 

Laita and suffered some unidentified injury. “Not ‘every malevolent touch by a prison guard 

Case 1:14-cv-00362-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 5
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

gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178, 

175 L.Ed.2d 995 (2010) (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. at 1000). “An inmate who 

complains of a push or shove that causes no discernible injury almost certainly fails to state a 

valid excessive force claim.” Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 38. Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to 

state a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendant Laita. 

C. Eighth Amendment – Failure to Intervene

Prison officials are required “to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical 

abuse.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir.1982) (abrogated on other grounds by 

Sandin v. O’Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)). “[A] prison 

official can violate a prisoner’s Eight Amendment rights by failing to intervene.” Robins v. 

Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir.1995).

Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Gonzales for failure to 

intervene in the use of force by Defendant Laita. As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to state a 

cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendant Laita. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a 

claim for failure to intervene. 

Plaintiff also has not stated a cognizable claim against either Defendant Gonzales or 

Defendant Laita for failure to intervene or for failure protect Plaintiff from harm by his cellmate. 

There are no factual allegations demonstrating that Defendants knew of a risk of harm to 

Plaintiff from his cellmate or that they were present during the alleged attack. Plaintiff will be 

given leave to cure these deficiencies. 

D. Freedom of Association

“An inmate does not retain rights inconsistent with proper incarceration” and “freedom of 

association is among the rights least compatible with incarceration.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 

U.S. 126, 131, 123 S.Ct. 2162, 2167, 156 L.Ed.2d 162 (2003). Accordingly, “[s]ome curtailment 

of that freedom must be expected in the prison context.” Id. However, associational rights only 

extend to groups engaged in expressive activities. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1246 

(9th Cir. 2013). As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for freedom of 

association arising out of his forced housing with a known gang member. 

Case 1:14-cv-00362-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim. As noted above, the Court will provide 

Plaintiff with a final opportunity to amend his complaint and cure the identified deficiencies. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555 (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 

(7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

second amended complaint; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a 

claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00362-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/13/15 Page 5 of 5