Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00755/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00755-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELL PULLETT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. CASTELLANOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00755-RRB

ORDER DISMISSING

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pending before the Court is the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dell

Pullett, a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.1

Pullett’s action arises out of his incarceration at the California Substance Abuse and

Treatment Facility, Corcoran (“CSATF”). Pullett is currently incarcerated at the R. J.

Donovan Correctional Center, San Diego. 

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

2 The Court

1

In his Third Amended Complaint Pullet names as Defendants J. Castellanos,

Correctional Officer; M. Kelm, Correctional Officer; Melero, Correctional Officer; and T.

Atkins, Correctional Lt. 

2

 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 1

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 8
set forth the standards applicable to screening in its initial Dismissal Order;3

therefore, the

Court does not repeat them herein. 

II. PRIOR DISMISSAL ORDERS 

In dismissing the First Amended Complaint the Court permitted Pullett to amend

with respect to his Third Cause of Action, an Eighth Amendment claim as against a

correctional officer, J. Castellanos, and the John Doe Defendants that arose out of a

stabbing incident that occurred while Pullett was walking unescorted between his cell and

the infirmary on May 13, 2013.4

Pullett’s Second Amended Complaint consisted of ten paragraphs. The Court

dismissed it for failure to comply with the Court’s Order dismissing the First Amended

Complaint.5

III. GRAVAMEN OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett’s claim arises out an incident in which he was stabbed by two other inmates. 

Although it is somewhat difficult to follow Pullett appears to allege that in retaliation for the

filing of inmate grievances that the Defendants somehow contrived to have him stabbed 

by other inmates. 

Castellanos. Pullett alleges that: (1) Pullett observed Castellanos talking with

inmate Simas and hand him a brown paper bag; (2) Castellanos then called Pullett into

the office and berated Pullet for filing grievances, essentially warning Pullett that “he was

3

 Docket 9.

4

 Docket 13, pp. 14–15.

5

 Docket 21.

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 2

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 8
going to start searching Black inmates cells to cause trouble on the plaintiff, and that noone write (sic) him up and get (sic) away with it”;6

and (3) immediately after Castellanos’

warning inmate Simas stabbed Pullett in the neck and Simas’ cellie stabbed him in the

lung.

7

 

Kelm/Melero. Reduced to their essence, the allegations against Kelm and Melero

are that they should have known that Pullett was a target for the assault but turned a “blindeye” for their friend, Castellanos.

Atkins. Pullett appears to allege that Atkins: (1) failed to properly train and

supervise his subordinates; (2) ordered the other officers to retaliate against Pullett for filing

grievances, and (3) conspired with Atkins, Kelm, and Melero to have Pullet stabbed.

IV. DISCUSSION 

Initially the Court notes that Pullett sues the Defendants in both their individual and

official capacities. The Supreme Court has held that “states or governmental entities that

are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment” are not “persons” under

§ 1983.8 The Supreme Court also clarified that “a suit against a state official in his or her

official capacity . . . . is no different from a suit against the state itself.”9 Thus, to the extent

that Pullett is suing the Defendants in their official capacities, the action must be dismissed.

6

 Docket 24, p. 12, ¶ 35.

7

 It appears from the Third Amended Complaint that both inmates were white.

8 Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989).

9

Id. at 71.

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 3

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 8
The heart of Pullett’s Third Amended Complaint is that the attack was engineered

by Castellanos in retaliation for filing the internal complaints. The Ninth Circuit has defined

the parameters of a retaliation claim:

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took

some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's

protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of

his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance

a legitimate correctional goal.10

The Ninth Circuit has “also noted that a plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling effect may still

state a claim if he has suffered some harm.”11 Moreover, “the mere threat of harm can be

an adverse action, regardless of whether it is carried out because the threat itself can have

a chilling effect.”12

 Nor need the threat be explicit or specific.13

A prisoner must also show some causal connection between the action taken by the

state actor and the prisoner’s protected conduct. That is, “[t]o prevail on a retaliation claim,

a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor

behind the defendant's conduct.”14

Pullett has pleaded the existence of an adverse action, i.e., the knife attack, and that

he has was engaged in a protected First Amendment activity, i.e., the filing of grievances

10 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and

citations omitted).

11 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Rhodes, 408 F.3d

at 568 n. 11).

12

 Id. at 1270.

13

 Id.

14

 Id. at 1271 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 4

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 4 of 8
against Castellanos. A trier of fact might logically presume that the stabbing had a chilling

effect on Pullett’s First Amendment right to file grievances and lacked any legitimate

penological interest. What Pullett has not pleaded is a factual basis to establish a causal

connection between the protected activity and the harm. 

To prevail on this action Pullett must plead and prove the existence of a conspiracy

between Castellanos and the assailants. The elements of a conspiracy are twofold: (1) an

agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights; and (2) an actual

deprivation of those rights.15 Pullett’s allegations fall far short of establishing the existence

of an agreement between Castellanos and the assailants or between Castellanos and the

other Defendants. Indeed, that any such agreement can truthfully be alleged under the

facts as presently pleaded is not only questionable, but inherently improbable. To accept

that such a conspiracy existed would require the jury to accept that the Defendants were

willing to risk a criminal prosecution simply because Pullett filed grievances against

Castellanos. That a jury would reach such a conclusion is inherently implausible.

Pullett’s claim as against the Defendants does not survive under an alternative

theory: failure to protect. It is clearly established that the Eighth Amendment imposes a

duty on prison officials to protect prisoners from harm at the hands of other prisoners.16

It need not be shown that the prison official believed or had reason to believe that harm

would actually befall the prisoner; liability may be imposed if the official failed to act despite

15 See Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010); Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d

1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002)).

16

 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–33 (1994).

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 5

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 5 of 8
the official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm and fails to take reasonable

measures to abate it.17 

In this case there is no allegation, express or necessarily implied, that the

Defendants or any of them had any actual knowledge of a serious risk that Pullett would

suffer any harm. There is nothing in the Third Amended Complaint that indicates that any

of the Defendants had any knowledge that Pullett was in any danger of being attacked. 

There is no allegation that prior to the attack underlying Pullett’s claim any inmate housed

at CSATF had even made any threat against Pullett,18

let alone actually physically

assaulted him. Pullett’s claim is conclusory, based upon supposition and innuendo, not

facts.19It appears to be based solely upon the fact that he was the lone black amongst

several Caucasians and Hispanics in the immediate vicinity.

20

 In the absence of at least

some evidence of tension between blacks and Caucasians and Hispanics resulting in at

least the threat, if not the actual occurrence, of a physical altercation, there is simply

17

Id., at 842–47; see Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009)

(applying Farmer).

18

It appeared from the Complaint that Pullett had concerns about an enemy while

housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison. As result of these concerns, Pullett was

transferred to CSATF. Nothing in either the Amended Complaint or the documents

attached to it provide any indication that Pullett had an enemy at CSATF. 

19 This is particularly true as to Kelm and Melero, the allegations against which

simply state that they “knew or should have known that plaintiff was a target to get

assaulted by inmates.” Docket 24, p. 13, ¶ 39 (Kelm) and p. 14, ¶ 41 (Melero).

20 The Court does note that it is alleged that the prison was on lock-down at the

time. Pullett has not alleged and nothing in the Third Amended Complaint provides any

information concerning the reason for the lockdown or its relevance to Pullett’s claims. 

Moreover, when on lock-down status inmates are usually confined to their cells, not as is

alleged in this case freely roaming the prison corridors and the day room.

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 6

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 6 of 8
nothing upon which it could be objectively determined that Pullett was in danger of an

assault. 

V. CONCLUSION/ORDER

The Third Amended Complaint does not allege sufficient facts upon which the Court

may grant relief as against any Defendant. “[W]hen a district court has already granted a

plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is

particularly broad.”21 The Court has already given Pullett three opportunities to amend his

Complaint. It is apparent that Pullett cannot truthfully plead a plausible cause of action

against the Defendants or any of them; thus, any further amendment would be futile.22

Therefore, the Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety without leave

to amend.

This Court, having fully considered the matter finds that reasonable jurists could not

disagree with this Court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Accordingly, any appeal would be frivolous or taken in bad faith.23 Plaintiff’s in forma

pauperis status is hereby REVOKED.

21 See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted).

22 See Hartman v. California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1141, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”);

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (explaining that leave

to amend should be given unless amendment would be futile). 

23

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092

(9th Cir. 2002).

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 7

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 7 of 8
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal, with prejudice,

which states that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2016.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 8

Case 1:15-cv-00755-RRB Document 26 Filed 06/16/16 Page 8 of 8