Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00822-0/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

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00822-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF BE PERMITTED TO 

PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND 

THAT NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS BE 

DISMISSED 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

ORDER ASSIGNING THIS CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Gonzales and 

Phun failed to protect him from a prison fire in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also 

alleges that defendant Baker failed to deliver on a promise to obtain a medical check-up for 

plaintiff and to speak with defendants Gonzales and Phun about their responses to the fire. On 

October 10, we screened plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 9. We found that plaintiff stated an 

Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Gonzales and Phun, but no claim against defendant 

Baker. The screening order gave plaintiff thirty days to choose between (1) proceeding only on 

the claims found cognizable and voluntarily dismissing defendant Baker, (2) amending the 

complaint to add facts in an attempt to make out additional claims or claims against additional 

Case 1:19-cv-00822-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 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

2

defendants, or (3) standing on the current complaint subject to dismissal of claims and defendants 

consistent with this order. Plaintiff has not responded to the screening order. We will thus 

recommend that the non-cognizable claims be dismissed and order that this case be assigned to a 

district judge to review this recommendation. 

The analysis below substantially repeats that of the screening order, ECF No. 9.

SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). However, the court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint 

“if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 

which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 

2017).

Case 1:19-cv-00822-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 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

3

DISCUSSION

Threshold Requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a right secured by 

federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 916 (2017). To 

state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acting under color of state law 

caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Soo Park 

v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). The plaintiff can satisfy the causation 

requirement by showing either (1) the defendant’s “personal involvement” in the alleged 

deprivation or (2) a “sufficient causal connection” between the defendant’s conduct as a 

supervisor and the alleged deprivation. See King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 559 (9th 

Cir. 2018). 

The defendants here are all state prison employees who, accepting plaintiff’s allegations 

as true, can be inferred to have acted under color of state law. See Paeste v. Gov’t of Guam, 798 

F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[G]enerally, a public employee acts under color of state law 

while acting in his official capacity or while exercising his responsibilities pursuant to state law.” 

(quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 50 (1988))). However, plaintiff has failed to satisfy the 

causation requirement with respect to defendant Baker. Plaintiff alleges only that Baker promised 

plaintiff that he would be “checked out thoroughly” by prison medical staff and that Baker would 

speak to defendants Gonzales and Phun about their response to the fire. See ECF No. 1 at 6. 

Plaintiff says that neither of these things happened. Id. While plaintiff may be understandably 

frustrated by Baker’s alleged actions, those actions do not amount to personal involvement in the 

alleged deprivation and do not establish a sufficient causal connection to that deprivation.

The remaining question is whether the alleged actions of defendants Gonzales and Phun 

violated federal law. 

Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference

Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates. Officials violate that duty 

when they are “deliberately indifferent” to “serious” threats to the inmate’s safety. See Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Here, plaintiff has alleged that defendants Gonzales and 

Case 1:19-cv-00822-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 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

4

Phun violated this duty. Plaintiff alleges that, during a prison fire, Gonzales and Phun “both 

stood still, and taunted [plaintiff] with laughter” while his cell filled with smoke—smoke that 

caused plaintiff to pass out and left him with chest pain. ECF No. 1 at 6. These allegations are 

sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We find that plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Gonzales 

and Phun, but no other claims. We thus recommend that the action proceed only on the Eighth 

Amendment claims against Gonzales and Phun, and that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed.

Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 

written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document 

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. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

ORDER

We order that the clerk of court assign this case to a district judge to review the findings 

and recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:19-cv-00822-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 Page 4 of 4