Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY BREW,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F04-5445 REC LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Jerry Brew (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

March 18, 2004, against Defendants Johnson, Campbell, Reynold, Eckard and Hindt. 

A. 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 “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). “Notwithstanding 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). 

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 06/07/05 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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Reynold “punished” him for an argument by reassigning

him to a dormitory where the occupants smoked all day, thereby exposing him to second hand

smoke. Plaintiff further alleges that he asked the remaining defendants to be moved to a different

dormitory to no avail. 

A. Retaliation

Retaliation, although not referred to expressly in the Constitution, is actionable because

'retaliatory actions may tend to chill individuals' exercise of constitutional rights. Perry v.

Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972). Thus, a claim may be stated under 42 U.S.C. section

1983 where a plaintiff alleges retaliation by state actors for the exercise of his First Amendment

rights. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v.

Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995).

To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must allege and show that the defendants acted

to retaliate for his exercise of a protected activity, and defendants' actions did not serve a

legitimate penological purpose. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994); Pratt

65 F.3d at 807. The injury asserted in retaliation cases is the retaliatory conduct’s chilling effect

on the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. See Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir.

1997); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000). 

A plaintiff asserting a retaliation claim must demonstrate a "but-for" causal nexus

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 06/07/05 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

between the alleged retaliation and plaintiff's protected activity (i.e., filing a legal action). 

McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1979); see Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of

Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). The prisoner must submit evidence, either direct or

circumstantial, to establish a link between the exercise of constitutional rights and the allegedly

retaliatory action. Pratt, 65 F.3d at 806. Timing of the events surrounding the alleged retaliation

may constitute circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent. See Pratt 65 F.3d at 808; Soranno’s

Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1989).

In this case, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief

under Section 1983 with respect to his retaliation allegation. Plaintiff should note further that 

prisoners have no constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility. 

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976). Based on the facts provided by Plaintiff, the

Court finds he states no cognizable claim for relief against Defendant Reynold for retaliation. 

B. Eighth Amendment

Plaintiff next alleges that Defendants Reynold, Johnson, Campbell, Hindt and Eckard

knew of his complaints regarding the exposure to second hand smoke yet did not move him to

another dormitory. 

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). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of

confinement, prison officials may be held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to

a substantial risk of serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Exposure to levels of environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”) that pose an unreasonable risk of

serious damage to a prisoner’s future health may state a cause of action under the Eighth

Amendment where prison officials acted with deliberate indifference. Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 35 (1993). The objective factor requires that the prisoner “show that he himself is being

exposed to unreasonably high levels of ETS” and that the “risk of which he complains is not one

that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 35-6. The subjective factor

requires that the prisoner demonstrate that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference in

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 06/07/05 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

exposing him to ETS. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges specifically that he informed Defendants Johnson, Campbell and Hindt of

his exposure to the smoke yet they did nothing to move him. The Court finds Plaintiff

sufficiently states a cognizable claim for relief against Defendants Johnson, Campbell and Hindt. 

However, he does not state a claim against Defendants Edkard and Reynold. 

The Complaint merely alleges that Defendant Reynold moved him to a dormitory where

the occupants smoked. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Reynold knew he was not a

smoker and that such exposure would bother him. Although Plaintiff states that he requested that

Defendant Reynold move him, he does not sufficiently allege that Defendant Reynold knew of

and disregarded a substantial risk of harm. 

Similarly, with respect to Defendant Eckard, Plaintiff only alleges that he asked him to

move him to a separate dormitory. There are no facts in the Complaint that would give rise to a

claim that Defendant Eckard knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm by failing to

move Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendants

Johnson, Campbell and Hindt. However, he does not state a claim against Defendants Eckard

and Reynold. 

C. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The complaint sufficiently states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for relief against

Defendants Johnson, Campbell and Hindt. However, the Complaint does not contain any other

cognizable claims for relief. As such, the Court will grant Plaintiff the opportunity to file an

Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies, or, in the alternative, notify the Court in writing

whether Plaintiff intends to proceed directly with those claims found to be cognizable. Plaintiff

should note that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint be complete in itself

without reference to prior pleadings. 

In the event Plaintiff wishes to proceed on the cognizable claims, the Court will issue

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss those claims not cognizable. The Court will then

forward Plaintiff a summons and USM-285 form to fill out and return to the Court in order to

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 06/07/05 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

effect service on the Defendants. Upon the return of these forms, the Court will direct the US

Marshal to initiate service of process on Defendants. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within THIRTY (30) days

from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL either:

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and instead wishes to proceed on the cognizable claims for

relief set forth in this Order.

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 06/07/05 Page 5 of 5