Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05660/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05660-0/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

CECIL JEROME HATCHETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUE HUBBARD CARTER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05660-REC-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD NEW

CLAIMS

(Doc. 17)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SCAN LODGED AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 18)

Plaintiff Cecil Jerome Hatchett (“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 May

3, 2004. On November 24, 2004, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend for

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on December 3, 2004, and on March 3, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s

amended complaint for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed

a second amended complaint on March 9, 2005. On June 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking

leave to amend and submitted a proposed amendment setting forth new claims.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise,

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Case 1:04-cv-05660-REC -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 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

2

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s proposed amendment and finds that it does not state a

claim. Plaintiff alleges that he earned a twelve-point reduction of his classification score but that

defendant O’Donald, his correctional counselor, failed to reduce his score. Plaintiff alleges that as

a result, he remained housed on a maximum security level-four yard, where he was assaulted by

other inmates. Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth

Amendment were violated.

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty without due

process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of action

for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty

interest for which the protection is sought. Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause

itself or from state law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983). The Due Process Clause

itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in a particular classification status. See Moody

v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88, n.9 (1976). The existence of a liberty interest created by state law is

determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84

(1995). Liberty interests created by state law are generally limited to freedom from restraint which

“imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of

prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. 

Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in a particular custody level. Id. For this reason, the

failure to lower plaintiff’s classification score does not implicate plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

With respect to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 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). 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). 

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishment Clause depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8

(1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and responsive

Case 1:04-cv-05660-REC -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 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

3

to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. at 8 (quotations and citations omitted). “[E]xtreme

deprivations are required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment] conditions-of-confinement claim.”

Id. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect to this type of claim, “[b]ecause routine discomfort is part

of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society, only those deprivations

denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis

of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 

The failure to adjust downward a classification score is not a deprivation “sufficiently grave

to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s allegations do

not give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Allowing plaintiff leave to amend to add his claims against defendant O’Donald would be

futile because plaintiff’s claims against defendant O’Donald are not cognizable. In addition, in a

Findings and Recommendations issued concurrently with this order,the court recommended that this

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted

under section 1983. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be denied. 

Accordingly, 

1. For the reasons set forth in this order, plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend to

add two claims against defendant O’Donald, filed June 8, 2005, is DENIED; and

2. The Clerk’s Office shall scan plaintiff’s lodged amended complaint so that it

becomes part of the record in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05660-REC -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/08/05 Page 3 of 3