Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05529/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05529-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GALE JOSEPH YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT CLASSIFICATION 

STAFF AT CJ #5/4, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05529-KAW (PR)

ORDER FINDING CERTAIN CLAIMS 

COGNIZABLE; DISMISSING OTHER 

CLAIMS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Gale Joseph Young, a state prisoner incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail, 

has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his

constitutional rights by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Classification Staff, Deputies 

Taylor and Garza and Facility Commander Lt. Wheeler. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction 

of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge over this action. Plaintiff has filed a motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is granted in a separate order. The Court now 

addresses the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1988).

Case 4:15-cv-05529-KAW Document 7 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the 

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Caifornia Dep’t of Corrections & 

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 

1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives 

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 

participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to 

do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 

Under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Lemire, 756 

F.3d at 1074. Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances is there liability under section 1983 

solely because one is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 

680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal 

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the 

supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 

1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)). It is 

insufficient for a plaintiff only to allege that supervisors knew about the constitutional violation 

and that they generally created policies and procedures that led to the violation, without alleging 

“a specific policy” or “a specific event” instigated by them that led to the constitutional violations. 

Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has been confined to his cell for two months 

without any recreation. He also alleges that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Classification 

Staff is preventing him from accessing the law library to litigate his pending civil rights case,

Case 4:15-cv-05529-KAW Document 7 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

Young v. San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, et al., No. C 15-3267 KAW (PR), by holding him 

in administrative segregation at County Jail #5, where inmates do not have access to the law 

library, whereas inmates in administrative segregation at County Jail #4 have access to the law 

library every day. Other deputies told Plaintiff that the Classification Committee moved him to 

County Jail #5 because of the previous lawsuit Plaintiff filed against other sheriff’s deputies. 

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against the Classification Committee

Staff, Deputies Taylor and Garza, who are on the Classification Committee, and Facility 

Commander Lt. Taylor. Plaintiff states that he does not have all the names of the members of the 

Classification Committee.

Liberally construed, these allegations appear to state a cognizable First Amendment claim 

against Deputies Taylor and Garza for denying Plaintiff access to the courts and a cognizable First 

Amendment retaliation claim against them for retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising his First 

Amendment rights. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996) (prisoners have a constitutional 

right of access to the courts); Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-

84 (1977) (retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a constitutional right is actionable under 

section 1983). 

However, even liberally construed, the allegations do not state a cognizable claim against 

Lt. Wheeler based on his position as Facility Commander. See Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045 (no 

supervisory liability under section 1983). To state a cognizable claim against Lt. Wheeler, the 

allegations must show how he was personally involved in the constitutional violation. Plaintiff is 

granted leave to amend so that he may remedy this deficiency, if he can truthfully do so. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff cannot name the Classification Staff in lieu of naming the other members of

the committee who violated his constitutional rights. Therefore, the claim against the 

Classification Staff is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to terminate the Classification Staff as a 

defendant. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to name the members of the committee when he 

learns who they are.

Even liberally construed, the allegations do not state a cognizable claim based on the 

denial of recreation. An Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of humane conditions must 

Case 4:15-cv-05529-KAW Document 7 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

meet an objective and subjective requirement. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir 

2000). A deprivation meets the objective requirement if it deprives the “inmate of the minimal 

civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Id. at 1122. The subjective requirement means that the 

defendant must have acted with deliberate indifference. Id. Although the denial of recreation for 

two months may meet the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, see id. (six weeks 

with only forty-five minutes of exercise per week fulfilled objective component), Plaintiff does not 

name any individuals who are responsible for this deprivation and, furthermore, he does not allege 

that any one acted with deliberate indifference. Therefore, this claim is dismissed with leave to 

amend for Plaintiff to remedy this deficiency, if he can truthfully do so.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The First Amendment claims against the Classification Staff are dismissed with 

prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to name the individuals on the Classification 

Committee when he learns who they are. The First Amendment claims against Lt. Wheeler and the 

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim based on lack of recreation are dismissed 

with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth above. The amended complaint 

must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this Order is filed and must include the 

caption and civil case number used in this Order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the 

first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff 

must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 

(9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 

Failure to amend within the specified time period will result in these claims being dismissed with 

prejudice. 

2. The cognizable First Amendment claims will be served after Plaintiff files and the Court 

reviews his amended complaint. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within twentyeight days, the cognizable First Amendment claims will then be served on Taylor and Garza. 

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Case 4:15-cv-05529-KAW Document 7 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b).

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate the Classification Committee Staff as a defendant in 

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2016

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05529-KAW Document 7 Filed 02/03/16 Page 5 of 5