Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00838/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00838-4/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

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAROYA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00838-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Standard

Plaintiff Carlos Hendon (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June

27, 2005. 

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 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/14/06 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

27

28 1

 Identified as Caldron in the complaint.

2

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at the California Correctional

Institution in Tehachapi, where plaintiff was incarcerated at the time. Plaintiff names prison

employees Fam, Hamilton, Baroya, Griffin, Reidman, and Calderon1 as defendants. Plaintiff is

seeking money damages. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights by abruptly removing

him from suicide watch while he was still suicidal, thereby denying him medical care. Plaintiff

alleges that between June 5, 2002, and March 27, 2003, approximately, he was almost always kept

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/14/06 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

27

28

3

in regular or secluded cells on suicide watch. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered from episodes of selfmutilation and gesture problems, which increased in frequency. Plaintiff alleges that he was

repeatedly taken off suicide watch and placed in regular or secluded cells by defendant Baroya, the

chief psychiatrist, despite his protestations that he was still suicidal. Plaintiff alleges that prison rules

required he stay on suicide watch until he uttered the “magic words” that he was not suicidal

anymore. (Comp., ¶13.) Plaintiff alleges that the cells were not equipped to handle suicidal inmates

because they contained items such as clothing, sheets, towels, and other things that could be used

to tie and suspend items. 

Plaintiff alleges that a year later, defendants “Fam, Griffin, Hamilton, and Reidman recorded

that [plaintiff] was depressed, had attempted suicide, had frequent suicidal ideation[], was obsessed

with tying a sheet around his neck, [was] defacating [sic] on the floor and smearing feces on the

walls in the cell, and had cut his wrist.” (Id., ¶16.) Plaintiff alleges that despite this, defendants, two

of whom are psychiatrists and two of whom are psychologists, failed to provide any medication or

monitor his condition. Plaintiff alleges that defendants abandoned him as a patient, and that his selfinjurious tendencies remained ongoing. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Baroya’s motivation for

removing plaintiff and other inmates from suicide watch was to prevent overcrowding in the

infirmary, despite the detriment to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden Calderon knew

of the repeated decisions to remove plaintiff and other inmates from suicide watch despite the fact

that they remained suicidal, but failed to intervene or prevent future occurrences.

C. Plaintiff’s Claims 

1. Eighth Amendment Medical/Mental Health Care Claim

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 of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘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)). A prison official does not act in

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/14/06 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

27

28

4

a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may

be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,”

or in the manner “in which prison physicians provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

The court recognizes that “[a] difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison

medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a s 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon,

662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). However, in light of notice pleading

standards, the court finds plaintiff’s allegations that he was removed from suicide watch while

suicidal and placed in a cell containing items with which he could harm himself, and was not

provided with medical care for his condition are sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under

section 1983 against defendants Baroya, Fam, Hamilton,Griffin, andReidman. Plaintiff’s allegation

that defendant Calderon was aware of defendant Baroya’s actions but failed to intervene is sufficient

to give rise to a claim under section 1983.

2. State Law Tort Claims

Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence under state law. California’s Tort Claims Act requires

that a tort claim against a public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim

Compensation and Government Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no

more than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4,

950-950.2 (West 2006). Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are

conditions precedent to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234,

1245, 90 P.3d 116, 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 543 (2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n,

67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must

allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act. State v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1245, 90 P.3d

at 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d at 543; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/14/06 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

27

28

5

Although plaintiff alleges that he utilized the prison grievance process by filing an inmate

appeal, that does satisfy the Tort Claims Act with respect to plaintiff’s state law negligence claims.

The court will allow plaintiff leave to amend, in the event that this deficiency is curable. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint states claims upon which relief under section 1983

against defendants Baroya, Fam, Hamilton, Griffin, Reidman, and Calderon for violation of the

Eighth Amendment. However, plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any cognizable negligence

claims because plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the Tort Claims Act. The court will provide

plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, in the event that this deficiency is

curable.

If plaintiff (1) does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed only against

defendants Baroya, Fam, Hamilton, Griffin, Reidman, and Calderon on his Eighth Amendment,

claims or (2) cannot cure the deficiency, plaintiff may so notify the court in writing. The court will

then issue a Findings and Recommendations recommending that the negligence claims be dismissed

from this action, and will forward plaintiff six summonses and six USM-285 forms to fill out and

return to the court. Upon receipt of these documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal

to initiate service of process on defendants.

In the event that plaintiff does wish to amend his complaint, plaintiff is advised Local Rule

15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. 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. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the 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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some

affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v.

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/14/06 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

27

28

6

Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976);May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in

this order, or

b. Notify the court in writing that (1) he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only against defendants Baroya, Fam,

Hamilton, Griffin, Reidman, and Calderon for violation of the Eighth

Amendment or (2) he cannot cure the deficiency; and

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/14/06 Page 6 of 6