Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835-0/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

BYRON G. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F CV F 03 6835 REC LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 14.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Byron G. Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

November 14, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The action was

transferred to this Court on December 4, 2003. 

On April 2, 2004, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend finding that

Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Director of the California Department of Corrections

or the Warden of Avenal State Prison, wherein the allegations in the Complaint arose. 

On May 3, 2004, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 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

2

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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims 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 reviewing a

complaint under this standard, 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 plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on April 4, 2001, at approximately 5:30 p.m. he was told to step

outside by Doe Defendant #1. Doe #2 followed. While outside, Doe Defendant #1 ordered him

to put his hands against the wall and proceeded to kick his feet apart with “excessive force

sadistically and maliciously with reckless disregard.” (Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff was then

cuffed behind his back and when he informed Doe #1 that the cuffs were too tight, Doe #1 swung

him around with such force he fell to the ground and injured his head in the course these events. 

Plaintiff states that Doe #2 stood by and did nothing. Plaintiff was later charged and found guilty

of assaulting a peace officer. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Excessive Force

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 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

3

The use of excessive force by a prison official violates the eighth amendment. Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). Determining whether there has been an eighth

amendment violation turns upon " 'whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or

restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.' " See id.

at 6 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (1986)).

To prevail on an excessive force claim, an inmate must show the official applied force

"maliciously and sadistically" for the purpose of inflicting pain, rather than in a "good faith effort

to maintain or restore discipline." Id. at 4-5, 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999. Such factors as the need for

the application of the force, the relationship between the need for the application of force and the

amount of force used, and the extent of injury inflicted are relevant to the ultimate determination.

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (1986). An inmate, however, does not

need to have suffered an injury to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson, 503 U.S.

at 7.

The Supreme Court has further held that not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard

gives rise to a federal cause of action. Id. at 9. “Not every push or shove, even if it may later

seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights.” 

Id. (citing Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2nd Cir. 1973) (cert. denied sub nom.

Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033 (1973)). “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual’

punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical

force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’” 

Id. at 9-10.

In this case, Plaintiff only alleges that force was used on him. While Plaintiff

characterizes this force as excessive, he fails to allege facts that suggest the force used was

applied "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm" or "in a good faith

effort to maintain or restore discipline." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995

(1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff again fails to state a claim for relief against either of the Doe

Defendants. 

2. Failure to Protect

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical

abuse. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1250-51; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). To

establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were

“deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmates’s safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

at 834. The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First,

the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. at 834(citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official

must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

In this case, Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating that Defendant Doe #2 knew of

and disregarded a serious threat to his safety during the handcuffing incident. Accordingly,

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

time to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he

wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Second Amended Complaint how the conditions

complained of resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each defendant is

involved. Further, 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. 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). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that 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 an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint no longer serves any

function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 4 of 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

5

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

D. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by

the Court in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Second

Amended Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary

dismiss the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 5 of 5