Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01697/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01697-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONICO QUIROGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY KING, et. al.,

Defendants.

 CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-MJS (PC)

 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

 (ECF NO. 1)

 THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is before the Court for 

screening. He has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners and pretrial

detainees seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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). 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 7
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

“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). 

II. PLEADING STANDARD

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported 

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “are 

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 

677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible 

claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to 

have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, 

the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently being held at Kern County Prison in Bakersfield, California. 

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Timothy King, C. Chapa, Gauze, and “the 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 7
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

Sheriff’s Entity”

1

of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department (“Defendants”) for violating his 

rights under the First and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a general course of harassment, cruel and unusual 

punishment, mail tampering, and endangerment. (ECF No. 1 p. 3.) Plaintiff provides little 

additional information. He does not specify the acts he feels constituted such violations,

who committed them, or when they were committed. 

Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff choose 

to file an amended complaint, he must allege specific facts, not legal conclusions,

addressing the individual elements (described below) of his claims and clearly stating

which Defendants are responsible for which acts. He also should identify who within the 

“Sheriff’s Entity” he intends to sue.

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

The legal standards for making out a First or Eighth Amendment claim are as 

follows. Plaintiff should refer to these standards when drafting his amended complaint.

A. Cruel and Unusual Punishment 

The Eighth Amendment protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment can 

generally be divided into two categories: protection from inhumane methods of 

punishment and protection from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. 

Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court will advise Plaintiff of the 

pleading standards for both. 

i. Conditions of Confinement

Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, 

and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities 

 

1

Plaintiff refers to what appears to be “Sheriff’s Entity” as a Defendant. To whom or what he is referring is 

unclear.

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 7
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

are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). To maintain an Eighth 

Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent 

to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 

U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster 

v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 

217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). “Deliberate 

indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” but is satisfied 

by something “less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with 

knowledge that harm will result.” Farmer, 511 at 835. 

ii. Excessive Force

For Eighth Amendment claims arising out of the use of excessive physical force, 

the issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 

37 (2010) (per curiam) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7) (internal quotation marks omitted); 

Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2013). The objective component of an 

Eighth Amendment claim is contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of 

decency, Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 (quotation marks and citation omitted), and although de 

minimis uses of force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use of 

force to cause harm always violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of 

whether or not significant injury is evident, Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-8 (citing Hudson, 503 

U.S. at 9-10) (quotation marks omitted); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 

2002).

B. First Amendment Retaliation

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 7
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

and to be free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (citing Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Within the 

prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: 

(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 

inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th 

Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d at 1114-15; Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d at 1269. 

The second element focuses on causation and motive. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 

F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was a 

“‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind the defendant’s conduct.” Id. (quoting Sorrano’s 

Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Although it can be difficult to 

establish the motive or intent of the defendant, a plaintiff may rely on circumstantial 

evidence. Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1289 (finding that a prisoner established a triable issue of 

fact regarding prison officials’ retaliatory motives by raising issues of suspect timing, 

evidence, and statements); Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267-68 (9th Cir. 1997); Pratt 

v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) (“timing can properly be considered as 

circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent”). 

In terms of the third prerequisite, filing a grievance is a protected action under the 

First Amendment. Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 1989). 

With respect to the fourth prong, “[it] would be unjust to allow a defendant to 

escape liability for a First Amendment violation merely because an unusually determined 

plaintiff persists in his protected activity . . . .” Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 

192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999). The correct inquiry is to determine whether an 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

official’s acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First 

Amendment activities. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568-69 (citing Mendocino Envtl. Ctr., 192 

F.3d at 1300).

With respect to the fifth prong, a prisoner must affirmatively allege that “‘the prison 

authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional 

institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” Rizzo v. Dawson, 

778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985).

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against any Defendants for 

engaging in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for 

First Amendment retaliation, or for any other constitutional violation. The Court will 

provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes, in good 

faith, he can cure the identified deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 

(9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 

809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff amends, he may not change the 

nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself 

without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form and 

a copy of his complaint filed November 9, 2015;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in 

this order or a notice of voluntary dismissal;

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, 

the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed, with prejudice, 

for failure to state a claim and failure to obey a court order, subject to the 

“three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 14 Filed 03/31/16 Page 7 of 7