Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01887/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01887-1/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

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

JOSE RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOZANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01887-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Doc. 1) 

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on December 15, 2015. It must be dismissed with 

leave to file a first amended complaint since, as discussed in detail below, Plaintiff fails to state 

any claims that are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. Screening Requirement

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

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, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 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)(i)-(iii). If an action is dismissed on one of these three basis, a strike is imposed 

per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An inmate who has had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 10
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

as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and has 

not alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury does not qualify to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015).

B. Summary of Plaintiff=s 

Plaintiff complains of incidents that occurred at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"). 

Plaintiff names a number of defendants; some by name and others by position. Plaintiff does not 

delineate any specific claims nor does he identify any specific civil rights that he feels are being 

violated. Plaintiff alleges that he is being mentally and physically tortured and requests an 

investigation and that the torture be stopped. Plaintiff alleges that all of the Defendants are 

“absorbing everything out of [his] brain and replacing it with nonsence [sic] had [sic] denying 

[him] grooming” (Doc. 1, p. 3); that he is being physically tortured, raped, and abused (id.); they 

“manipulate” his eyes because he is against rapists and homosexuals (id.); that they make Plaintiff 

harm himself to the point that he “lost 60% of his blood” (id., at p. 4); they deny his eating and 

exercising in his cell “as well as reading and writing. By them [sic] putting videos of child 

pornography in [his] eyes” (id.); and that in 2013 he was pulled of his cell “and one of these 

voices injected me leaving unsound or what one would call ‘crazy’” (id.).

As the examples above show, Plaintiff’s allegations, at least in his first pleading effort, are 

not facially plausible, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and are not sufficiently linked 

to named Defendants for § 1983 claims. However, Plaintiff may be able to correct these

deficiencies so as to state a cognizable claim. Thus, he is being given general pleading standards

and the standards under the Eight Amendment (which appears to be the most likely applicable 

standard for the claims he is attempting to state) and leave to file a first amended complaint. 

C. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

"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. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 10
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

"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.@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 

quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff must set forth 

Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are accepted as true, but 

legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557. 

While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 

580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally 

and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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), and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and

“facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Though Plaintiff’s complaint is not lengthy, it is convoluted and does not contain a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief as Rule 8 requires. If he 

chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should endeavor to make it as concise as 

possible and under twenty-five pages in length. He should state which of his constitutional rights 

he feels were violated by each Defendant and the factual basis for his claim. 

2. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 10
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

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. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between 

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that A[a] person >subjects= another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another=s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.@ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named 

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff=s 

federal rights. 

Plaintiff fails to link any specific Defendant to any of his allegations. Plaintiff must 

clearly state which defendant(s) he feels is responsible for each violation of his constitutional 

rights and their factual basis as his complaint must put each defendant on notice of Plaintiff=s 

claims against him or her. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004).

D. Claims for Relief

1. Eighth Amendment

a. Excessive Force

The Eighth Amendment prohibits those who operate our prisons from using Aexcessive 

physical force against inmates.@ Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 

F.2d 1237, 1246, 1250 (9th Cir.1982) (prison officials have Aa duty to take reasonable steps to 

protect inmates from physical abuse@); see also Vaughan v. Ricketts, 859 F.2d 736, 741 (9th 

Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1012 (1989) (Aprison administrators= indifference to brutal 

behavior by guards toward inmates [is] sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim@). As

courts have succinctly observed, A[p]ersons are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.@ 

Gordon v. Faber, 800 F.Supp. 797, 800 (N.D. Iowa 1992) (citation omitted), aff=d, 973 F.2d 686 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 4 of 10
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

(8th Cir.1992). ABeing violently assaulted in prison is simply not >part of the penalty that criminal 

offenders pay for their offenses against society.=@ Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, (quoting Rhodes, 452 

U.S. at 347).

When a prison official stands accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the 

cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, the question turns on Awhether 

force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and 

sadistically for the purpose of causing harm.@ Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (citing 

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). In determining whether the use of force was 

wanton and unnecessary, it is proper to consider factors such as the need for application of force, 

the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived 

by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of the forceful response. 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The extent of a prisoner=s injury is also a factor that may suggest whether 

the use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary in a particular situation. Id. 

Although the absence of serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, it is not 

determinative. Id. That is, use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel 

and unusual punishment even though the prisoner does not suffer serious injury. Id. at 9.

b. Conditions of Confinement

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Morgan v. 

Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, no matter where they are housed, prison 

officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, 

sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). To establish a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, the prisoner must “show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference. . . .” 

Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of America, 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Gibson v. 

County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong. 

First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer at 834. 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 5 of 10
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

Second, subjectively, the prison official must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate 

health or safety.” Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995). 

c. Sexual Abuse

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment in penal institutions. 

Whether a specific act constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is measured by “the evolving 

standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 

U.S. 1, 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992).

Sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections employee is a violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. Wood v. Beauclair , 692 F.3d 1041, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2012) citing Schwenk 

v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir.2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms ... 

prisoners [have a clearly established Eighth Amendment right] to be free from sexual abuse....”); 

see also Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corr. v. District of Columbia, 877 

F.Supp. 634, 665 (D.D.C.1994) ( “[U]nsolicited touching of ... prisoners' [genitalia] by prison 

employees are ‘simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses 

against society’ ” (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994))), aff'd 

in part and vacated in part, 93 F.3d 910 (D.C.Cir.1996).

““[S]exual contact between a prisoner and a prison [employee] serves no legitimate role 

and is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. 

Where there is no legitimate penological purpose for a prison official’s conduct, courts have 

‘presum[ed] malicious and sadistic intent.’” Wood, 692F.3d at 1050-51, quoting Giron v. Corr. 

Corp. of Am., 191 F.3d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir.1999); also citing Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 

857, 861 (2d Cir.1997). Even sexual contact that is not violent and leaves no physical injury is 

given this presumption. Id. 

“At its core, the Eighth Amendment protects ‘the basic concept of human dignity’ and 

forbids conduct that is ‘so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous 

infliction of suffering.’” Wood, 692F.3d at 1050-51, quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 

182–83, 96 S.Ct. 2909 (1976). Sexual assault on a prisoner by a prison employee is always 

“deeply ‘offensive to human dignity’ ” and is completely void of penological justification. 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 6 of 10
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

7

Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1196. 

d. Medical Care

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must 

first Ashow a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner=s condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Second, 

the plaintiff must show the defendants= response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). 

The existence of a condition or injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and 

worthy of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 

individual=s daily activities, and the existence of chronic or substantial pain are indications of a 

serious medical need. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. 

v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)) (quotation marks omitted); Doty v. 

County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994). For screening purposes, Plaintiff's lower 

back pain is accepted as a serious medical need. 

Deliberate indifference is Aa state of mind more blameworthy than negligence@ and 

Arequires >more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner=s interests or safety.=@ Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 835 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319). ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004). AUnder this standard, the prison official 

must not only >be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 

risk of serious harm exists,= but that person >must also draw the inference.=@ Id. at 1057 (quoting 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). A>If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, 

then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.=@ Id.

(quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

2. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff may have named some defendants merely because they hold supervisorial 

positions at KVSP. However, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 7 of 10
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

8

for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a 

named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between him and the claimed 

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th 

Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 

(1979). To state a claim for relief under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, 

Plaintiff must allege some facts that would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: 

personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations 

and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or "implemented a policy so deficient that the 

policy 'itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights' and is 'the moving force of the constitutional 

violation.'" Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Under section 1983, liability may not be 

imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat 

superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. "In a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action - where masters do not 

answer for the torts of their servants - the term 'supervisory liability' is a misnomer." Id. 

Knowledge and acquiescence of a subordinate's misconduct is insufficient to establish liability; 

each government official is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Id. 

A>[B]are assertions . . . amount[ing] to nothing more than a Aformulaic recitation of the

elements@ of a constitutional discrimination claim,= for the purposes of ruling on a motion to 

dismiss [and thus also for screening purposes], are not entitled to an assumption of truth.@ Moss, 

572 F.3d at 969 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1951 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). ASuch 

allegations are not to be discounted because they are >unrealistic or nonsensical,= but rather 

because they do nothing more than state a legal conclusion B even if that conclusion is cast in the 

form of a factual allegation.@ Id. 

Thus, any allegations that supervisory personnel violated Plaintiff's rights and are 

somehow liable because of the acts of those under his or her supervision does not state a 

cognizable claim. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to file a first

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 8 of 10
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

9

amended complaint within 30 days. Alternatively, within 30 days, Plaintiff may file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal if he decides not to pursue this action further. 

In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained 

of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 

(9th Cir. 1980). The first amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under section 1983 unless there is some 

affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo 

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Plaintiff's first amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Such a short and 

plain statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quoting Conley v. 

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). 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. 127, 555 

(2007) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original, Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 

2012) (en banc), and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading," Local Rule 220. 

The Court provides Plaintiff with opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified 

by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff 

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended 

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no "buckshot" complaints).

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a first

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 9 of 10
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

10

a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply 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: March 31, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/01/16 Page 10 of 10