Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01227/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01227-3/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

JOSE LEDESMA, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

J. TYREE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG-PC

 

SCREENING ORDER

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT PROCEED 

ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

ADAME, TYREE, AND LUNDY FOR 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION 

BASED ON CONDITIONS OF 

CONFINEMENT, AND ALL REMAINING 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

(Doc. 9)

Plaintiff Jose Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court1previously 

screened Plaintiff’s initial complaint and found that it stated claims under the Eighth 

Amendment against Defendants Tyree and Lundy for unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement, but not other claims. ECF No. 9. The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint. 

 

1 All orders prior to the current order were issued by Magistrate Judge Gary Austin.

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 7
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

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, dated October 13, 

2015. (ECF. No. 9)

I. 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 Afrivolous or malicious,@ that 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). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint is required to contain Aa 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 A[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 

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare 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). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal 556 U.S. 

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere 

possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

II. SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLANT

On or about October 26, 2011, Plaintiff arrived at the California Corrections Institution. 

He was held in the “receiving and release” area and subjected to a strip search by Officers 

Adame and Medrano. After the strip search, Officers Adame and Medrano placed Plaintiff in 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 7
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

waist chains, put mits over Plaintiffs hands, shackled Plaintiff’s ankles, and taped Plaintiff’s 

boxers to Plaintiff’s thighs. 

For the next 16 days, Plaintiff was kept on contraband watch. The holding tank is 2 to 3 

feet from the entrance door, and the bottom has a 6 to 7” gap. Plaintiff was very cold. The 

tank was dirty and bed-infested. Defendant Adame told Plaintiff “after tonight your [sic] going 

to wish you had cooperated with us and worked with us from the beginning.” There was no

blanket, mattress, shower, change of clothes, or tooth brush. The restraints were kept on 

throughout so that Plaintiff could not stretch. The restraints cut Plaintiff’s wrists and ankles. 

Bright lights were kept on at all times.

All defecation and x-rays showed up negative for contraband. 

Plaintiff submitted a grievance, but the appeals coordinator failed to respond.

Plaintiff asserts claims for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, violation of the First Amendment access to the courts, and retaliation in violation 

of the 14th Amendment.

III. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT

a. Legal Standards

“It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions

under which [the prisoner] is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.” 

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 

(1994). Conditions of confinement may, consistent with the Constitution, be restrictive and 

harsh. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 

1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006); Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1996); Jordan v. 

Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1531 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Prison officials must, however, 

provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” 

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other 

grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 

731 (9th Cir. 2000); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982); Wright v. Rushen, 

642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981).

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 7
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

When determining whether the conditions of confinement meet the objective prong of 

the Eighth Amendment analysis, the Court must analyze each condition separately to determine 

whether that specific condition violates the Eighth Amendment. See Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 

1107; Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1246-47; Wright, 642 F.2d at 1133. “Some conditions of 

confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation 'in combination' when each would 

not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the 

deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise – for 

example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.” Wilson v. 

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); see also Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 

2010); Osolinski, 92 F.3d at 938-39; Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1107; Wright, 642 F.2d at 1133. 

When considering the conditions of confinement, the Court should also consider the amount of 

time to which the prisoner was subjected to the condition. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 

686-87 (1978); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005); Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 

1258. As to the subjective prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis, prisoners must establish 

prison officials’ “deliberate indifference” to unconstitutional conditions of confinement to 

establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 

303. This Court has found that “placement of seriously mentally ill inmates in the harsh, 

restrictive and non-therapeutic conditions of California's administrative segregation units for 

non-disciplinary reasons for more than a minimal period necessary to effect transfer to 

protective housing or a housing assignment violates the Eighth Amendment.” Coleman v. 

Brown, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1099 (E.D.Cal. 2014).

b. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Allegations

The Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment 

for unconsitutional conditions of confinement against Defendants Adame, Lundy, and Tyree 

based on their role in confining Plaintiff for 16 days to a holding cell without the ability to 

move unrestrained, and without blankets, showers, and other basic necessities. 

\\\

\\\

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 7
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. ACCESS TO THE COURTS

A. Legal Standards

Under the First Amendment, prisoners have the right to access the courts and the right 

to petition the government for a redress of grievances. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 

(1977). To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must establish 

that he has suffered an “actual injury” as a result of a prison official's misconduct. See Docket 

No. 15 at 8 (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351–52 (1996)). An “actual injury” exists 

where a prisoner has been “hindered [in his] efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. at 351; see also

Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that access-to-courts

claim requires an actual injury to court access), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey 

v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015).

B. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff has failed to allege a constitutional violation for access to the courts here. 

Plaintiff alleges that the prison has mishandled or ignored his grievance. At this point, Plaintiff 

has not been hindered in his efforts to pursue his legal claim based on the prison’s response to 

his grievance. These allegations will be relevant in determining whether Plaintiff has 

exhausted his administrative remedies and can go forward with this lawsuit on its merits. But 

the prison’s failure to address the grievance properly itself does not raise an independent

constitutional claim. 

V. RETALIATION

A. Legal Standards

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances and pursue civil rights 

actions. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); Bradley v. 

Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful 

access to the courts, and prison authorities may not penalize or retaliate against an inmate for 

exercising that right), overruled on other grounds by Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001). 

Thus, allegations of retaliation against an inmate’s exercise of First Amendment rights may 

support a civil rights claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531–32 (9th Cir. 1985); Pratt v. 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 7
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

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 & n. 4, 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (retaliation claims “fall within the other 

protections from arbitrary state action ... because they are based upon protection of the 

prisoner's First Amendment rights, and not their Due Process rights”) (citation, alteration and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

“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.” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567–68 (alterations omitted).

B. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff does not state an independent violation based on a retaliation claim. Plaintiff’s 

retaliation claim alleges the same facts regarding “being shackled, having clothes taped around 

plaintiff’s hands” and similar allegations that relate to his conditions of confinement, as 

addressed above. Plaintiff does not allege that these actions were done because of Plaintiff 

exercising some protected rights. 

VI. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has stated a claim against Defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for violations 

of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement. Plaintiff has failed to state any 

other claims, or claims against any other defendants.

Plaintiff has already been given leave to file an amended complaint with instructions 

regarding the law to inform that amended complaint. The Court does not believe further 

amendment would cure the deficiencies in the remaining claims and defendants.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only against Defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for 

violations of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement;

2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/24/16 Page 7 of 7