Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05641/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05641-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5641 OWW WMW 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

 DISMISS (DOC 46 )

D. MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials for

alleged civil rights violations that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at CSP Corcoran. 

In the order determining that the complaint stated a colorable claim for

relief, the Court found the following: 

Plaintiff alleges that while he was being escorted by defendants

Morales and Key (while plaintiff was in mechanical restraints -

waistchain and handcuffs), he was “taken down.” While on the

grounds, Key and Morales struck plaintiff with closed fists, and

pushed his face into the gravel. Lawton and Miller observed this

conduct, but failed to stop it or prevent it. Liberally construed,

the complaint states a claim for relief.

Defendants Morales, Key, Lawton and Miller bring this motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 53 Filed 08/14/07 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

Plaintiff has filed a document titled as an opposition to the motion to dismiss, as well as a 1

motion to strike the motion to dismiss. The Court will consider both pleadings as opposition to the

motion, as Plaintiff sets forth legal argument in opposition the motion in both documents. 

2

Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims regarding the filing of false reports, deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and conspiracy. Plaintiff has opposed the

motion.1

In considering a motion to dismiss, 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 party opposing

the motion and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). Under the basic rule, a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim should not be granted unless "it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff

can prove no set of facts in support of the claim 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 a case where the plaintiff is pro se, the court has an obligation to construe

the pleadings liberally. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

This rule applies with particular force to civil rights cases. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

False Reports. Plaintiff sets forth a generalized allegation that false reports

were filed. Defendants correctly argue that a prison inmate has no constitutionally

guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may result

in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest. Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951

(2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 982 (1988). Further, any allegations that would

invalidate any disciplinary conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 53 Filed 08/14/07 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

3

1983 if a judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction

or sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously

been invalidated. 512 U.S. at 487. 

In his opposition, Plaintiff refers to the allegations in the complaint, and

reasserts those allegations. Plaintiff makes no legal argument, and asserts no new facts

which, if considered would cure the defects regarding this claim. Plaintiff’s claims

regarding false reports should therefore be dismissed.

Conspiracy

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985, conspiracies to interfere with civil rights are

proscribed. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 1990); Karim-Panahi v.

Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). A mere allegation of

conspiracy without factual specificity is insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. 

Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 626. Plaintiff must demonstrate that there was an agreement between

the defendants to violate his constitutional rights. See Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d

1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989); Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983). Although the

Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the

elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646,

649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts

which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. 

Defendants argue that as to this claim, the complaint consists of vague,

conclusory and general allegations of “aiding and abetting” and a “coverup.” Defendants

argue that Plaintiff has not alleged facts that include the requisite allegations for

conspiracy. In his opposition, Plaintiff makes no mention of conspiracy. In the April 27,

2006, amended complaint on which this action proceeds, Plaintiff fails to allege specific

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 53 Filed 08/14/07 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

4

facts that satisfy the standard set out above. This claim must therefore be dismissed. 

Deliberate Indifference

Defendants argue that the facts alleged do not rise to the level of deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s injuries

consisted of minor scrapes and bruises that required minimal, if any, treatment. Plaintiff’s

exhibits to his complaint indicate that Defendant Miller cleaned and applied disinfectant to

the scrapes. Defendants argue that scrapes and bruises do not constitute significant injury

within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. 

In order to establish and Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate

indifference, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that Defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A

serious medical need arises if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Doty v.

County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9 Cir. 1994)(citing McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d th

1050, 1059 (9 Cir. 1992)). th

Regarding the response to his injuries, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Miller

“arrived on the scene during this attack and asked Plaintiff ‘are you hurt anywhere?’”

(Am. Compl. 5:25). Plaintiff alleges that, after he was secured in his cell, “defendants Sgt.

E. Lawton, and medical technical assistant D. Miller observed Plaintiff(s) badly bruised

and bleeding body in the cell.” (Am. Compl. 8:5). Plaintiff specifically alleges that

“Defendant D. Miller medical technical assistant, failed to provide medical services and

treatment to Plaintiff’s multiple injuries. Defendant D. Miller, medical technical assistant,

prepared a false medical report indicating that treatment was provided noting Defendant

Sgt. E. Lawton as a witness on this false 7219 medical report.” (Am. Compl. 8:9-17). 

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 53 Filed 08/14/07 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

5

Plaintiff alleges that 12 hours after the incident, he was treated by another individual and

“re-housed in the acute care hospital crisis unit wherein another full body exam of injuries

were conducted by Registered Nurse M. Trevino.” 

In his opposition, Plaintiff indicates that he has scar tissue as a result of the

injuries he received in 2002. Plaintiff also disputes Defendants’ assertion that his injuries

were treated. Though Plaintiff does not indicate any final diagnosis, he does indicate that

he was housed in the medical facility. 

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Erickson v. Pardus, 127

S.Ct. 2197 551 U.S. (2007). The Court, in reviewing the pleading standard in Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), held that under the notice pleading standard, specific facts are

not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests. The Court, in ruling on a motion to dismiss a prisoner’s civil

rights claim for deliberate indifference, held that the complaint could not be dismissed on

the ground that petitioner’s allegations of harm were too conclusory to put the matter in

issue. Id. 

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in a medical facility. 

Defendants have been given fair notice of what the claim is and the ground on which it

rests. The characterization of the significance of the injury is a matter best left to

summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to

dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy and false reports and denied as to

Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 53 Filed 08/14/07 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

6

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the

judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 53 Filed 08/14/07 Page 6 of 6