Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00421-0/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DESHONE SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PRESCOTI, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-0421-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1 In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

///// 

///// 

///// 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-00421-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/19/16 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

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[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. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00421-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/19/16 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

III. Screening Order 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A and finds 

that it must be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff alleges that 

defendant Officer Prescoti smashed plaintiff’s middle finger in his cell’s food slot when she was 

delivering plaintiff’s meal to him. Plaintiff claims he told her five times that she hurt his finger 

but she did not respond. Plaintiff describes Prescoti’s conduct as “an act of violence.” Plaintiff’s 

request for relief reads as follows: 

Plaintiff request for a serious review on a judgment of an act of conduct of a 

involvement of a performance with other litigation case(s). Based on a act within 

a injury caused by officer Prescotti , and her involvement. 

ECF No. 1, § V. 

 A generous reading of the complaint suggests that plaintiff is attempting to state a federal 

claim of excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment. Under the 

applicable legal standards however, his complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Further , Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to contain a demand for judgment for the relief sought. 

The court cannot determine the nature of the relief plaintiff seeks in this lawsuit. To proceed, 

plaintiff must file an amended complaint. 

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions that arise under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ 

federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a 

right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party 

of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (modification in original) (citing

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). “[T]he presence 

or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ 

which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 

face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer 

Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00421-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/19/16 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

 In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 

constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 

for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 

1948 (2009). Because respondeat superior liability is inapplicable to § 1983 suits, “a plaintiff 

must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual 

actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to allege facts to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). 

 “When prison officials use excessive force against prisoners, they violate the inmates’ 

Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.” Clement v. Gomez, 298 

F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2002). In order to establish a claim for the use of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish that prison officials applied force 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). In making this determination, the court 

may evaluate (1) the need for application of force, (2) the relationship between that need and the 

amount of force used, (3) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and (4) any 

efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7; see also id. at 9-10 (“The 

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from 

constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not 

of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted)). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00421-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/19/16 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

 The allegations in the complaint are too vague and conclusory to support a cognizable 

claim for relief. For example, it is not clear from the complaint how Prescotti injured plaintiff 

while delivering his meal. Though labeled “an act of violence,” there are no specific allegations 

showing whether the injury happened by accident or through an intentional act. Plaintiff appears 

to place significance on the fact that Prescotti did not respond when he told her that she smashed 

his finger. Prescoti’s failure to respond does not demonstrate that she applied force maliciously 

and sadistically to cause plaintiff harm and plaintiff alleges no facts to show such intent. The 

allegations do not demonstrate more than a de minimis use of force, and there are no specific 

allegations regarding any continuing pain or physical damage resulting from the incident. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Prescotti must be dismissed for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to state a 

cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant with sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 

their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 

shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. 

Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, 

unrelated claims. Further, any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above 

and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

Case 2:15-cv-00421-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/19/16 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

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 10) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, filed 

concurrently herewith. 

 3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First Amended 

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable 

claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: May 19, 2016. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00421-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/19/16 Page 6 of 6