Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01112-4/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

DAVID RYAN EHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01112-BAM-PC

ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED

ORDER THAT THIS ACTION COUNT

AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g).

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s December 8, 2015, first 

amended complaint, filed in response to the November 23, 2015, order dismissing the original 

complaint and granting Plaintiff leave file an amended complaint.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Institute For Men at Chino. Plaintiff brings this action 

against an unidentified appeals coordinator at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los 

Angeles, and unidentified food manager at North Kern State Prison, and an unidentified Appeals 

Case 1:15-cv-01112-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/17/16 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

Coordinator at North Kern State Prison.

In the order dismissing the original complaint, the Court noted that Plaintiff‟s complaint 

consisted of a three page complaint filed on a form for a personal injury action in state court. 

Plaintiff appeared to allege that while he was housed at North Kern State Prison, the conditions 

of his confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the 

inmates were served beans that included maggots. 

Plaintiff was advised that the statute under which this action proceeds provides for 

liability for state actors that cause “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution.” 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 the plaintiff. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[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 his original complaint, Plaintiff failed to identify any individual defendant, or charge 

any individual with conduct that constituted a violation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Plaintiff was told 

that in order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, 

describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant 

acted under color of state law. Plaintiff was directed to state clearly, in his or her own words, 

what happened. Plaintiff was told to describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the 

particular right described by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was also advised that as to his claim of unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement, in order to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” 

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner‟s claim does not rise to the level of 

an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the 

Case 1:15-cv-01112-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/17/16 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

„minimal civilized measure of life‟s necessities,‟” and (2) “the prison official „acted with 

deliberate indifference in doing so.‟” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 

2004)(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002)(citation omitted)). In order 

to find a prison official liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of 

confinement within a prison, the official must know “that inmates face a substantial risk of 

serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Plaintiff‟s allegations that there were maggots in 

his food were insufficient to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff was told that he must allege facts 

indicating that an individual defendant knew of an objectively serious condition and acted with 

deliberate indifference to that condition, resulting in injury to Plaintiff. He had not done so in 

the complaint. The conditions of confinement claim was therefore dismissed. 

II.

DISCUSSION

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff restates the allegations of the original complaint, 

including the allegations at Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles. Plaintiff only 

alleges generally that there were maggots in his food while he was housed at those facilities. 

Plaintiff does not identify any individual defendants. Plaintiff does not allege any facts 

indicating that an identifiable individual knew of a specific, objectively serious harm to Plaintiff, 

and act with deliberate indifference to that harm, or subject Plaintiff to conditions that 

constituted cruel and unusual punishment, as that term was defined for Plaintiff in the November 

23, 2015, order dismissing the original complaint.

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standards and the deficiencies in 

his pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint is largely 

identical to the original complaint. Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff‟s original and first 

amended complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts 

that would support a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the 

Case 1:15-cv-01112-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/17/16 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

Eighth Amendment, and further amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 

1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would 

be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that further leave to 

amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 

809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed for Plaintiff‟s failure to state a claim upon which relief could 

be granted; and

2. This action count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01112-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 4