Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01404-2/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

HERNAN OROZCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-1404 MCE CKD P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 2; see ECF No. 7.) He has requested leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the 

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis 

will be granted.

Plaintiff is confined at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”), where he claims to be at risk of 

contracting Valley Fever. He seeks injunctive relief in the form of a transfer to a different state 

hospital. Plaintiff names California Governor Edmund G. Brown as the sole defendant in this 

action. (ECF No. 2.) 

////

////

Case 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/05/14 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Screening Standard

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 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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order 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.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has 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, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. 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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Analysis 

At a bare minimum, a civil detainee cannot be subjected to conditions that amount to 

punishment. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 

Case 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/05/14 Page 2 of 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

3

520, 536–37 (1979). A civil detainee is entitled to more considerate treatment than his criminally 

detained counterparts and, when the detainee is confined in conditions identical or more 

restrictive than his counterparts, the courts presume that the detainee is being subjected to 

punishment. Id. at 932 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The courts have commonly 

applied Eighth Amendment standards to claims made by civil detainees under the Fourteenth 

Amendment. See, e.g., Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying Eighth 

Amendment standards to evaluate pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment claims).

Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials must provide for inmates’ basic human 

needs while in custody, including “food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety.” 

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993). Moreover, officials can violate the Eighth 

Amendment by showing deliberate indifference to an inmate’s unreasonable risk of future 

medical harm. Id. at 35. To violate the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause, the alleged 

deprivation must be objectively, sufficiently serious. Second, there is a subjective requirement 

that the official display a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

834 (1994) (citations omitted). However, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the confined 

individual need not prove deliberate indifference on the part of government officials. Jones, 393 

F.3d at 934.

Here, plaintiff alleges that, due to his “age, health status, and/or ethnicity,” he is at risk of 

contracting Valley Fever if he remains housed at CSH. (ECF No. 2 at 3.) The main flaw of the 

complaint is that it does not name a proper defendant under § 1983. There can be no liability 

under § 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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation 

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 

1982). Because Governor Brown was not responsible for the decision to keep plaintiff at CSH 

despite his risk factors, and no other defendants are named, plaintiff’s complaint must be 

dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/05/14 Page 3 of 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

4

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for 

the purpose of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). If 

plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he should carefully read this screening order and focus 

his efforts on curing the deficiencies set forth above. In an amended complaint, plaintiff must 

demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint 

must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. 

IV. Motion for Protective Order

Also before the court is plaintiff’s July 14, 2014 motion for injunctive relief. Unlike the 

complaint, plaintiff’s motion alleges “medical abuse” and retaliation by CSH medical staff. He 

seeks an order protecting him from such abuse and retaliation. (ECF No. 6.) 

First, as plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against any defendant, his motion for 

injunctive relief is premature. Second, the harm for which plaintiff seeks relief is outside the 

scope of the claim at issue in this action. In addition, as a general rule, this court is unable to 

issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Plaintiff cannot, by this motion, 

enjoin persons who are not defendants in the underlying action, based on claims that are not set 

forth in the operative complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 6) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 2) is dismissed; 

Case 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/05/14 Page 4 of 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

5

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and 

two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: November 5, 2014

2 / oroz1404.1new 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/05/14 Page 5 of 5