Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00068-0/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

SHAUNTAE TAYLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIMINEZ, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-0068-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

ECF No. 11

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Shauntae Tayler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, 

filed on October 10, 2019, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 11.)

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 

or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).

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

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 8
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

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)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 

as true, 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).

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S.

Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted 

unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California State Prison in Sacramento, California. The 

events in the amended complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern 

Valley State Prison. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) M. Jiminez, Sergeant; (2) R. 

Rodriguez, Lieutenant; (3) C. Huckleberry, Sergeant; (4) P. Rye, Correctional Officer; and (5) J. 

Hernandez, Correctional Officer. 

In Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Plaintiff generally argues that the Court erroneously 

screened Plaintiff’s original complaint and that his original complaint stated claims for relief. 

Plaintiff argues that the “evidence” will show that defendants lied as the physical evidence does 

not match the Defendants’ reports of the incident. While the first amended complaint does not 

recite factual allegations, the Court will summarize what facts are provided. 

Plaintiff alleges two claims: excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 

deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As to the first 

claim, Plaintiff alleges the “named defendants used, unlawful acts of violence not necessary to 

secure plaintiff from causing harm to himself or others.” (EC No. 11 p. 3 of 10.) Plaintiff alleges 

that “all 5 defendants acted with malice and forethought without any need to disarm Plaintiff,” 

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 8
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

and all Defendants “acted under color of state law with malice and forethought inflicting 

unnecessary injury and harm on plaintiff.” Plaintiff alleges “the linkage requirement has been 

shown by documentary evidence, the defendant used force and excessive ‘misconduct’ not in 

good faith with no need to restore discipline.” Plaintiff states he is not an attorney and “does not 

reasonably without flaw know how to state a cognizable claim beyond what is now being 

attempted.”

Plaintiff alleges that while attending a criminal proceeding regarding the named 

Defendants, he learned of a neighbor inmate who was a witness to the events and who made a 

documented statement. Plaintiff alleges that this neighbor inmate’s statement documents seeing 

officers deploying the grenade inside of Plaintiff’s cell and saw Plaintiff being excessively beaten

by the Defendants without provocation or cause. Plaintiff alleges there are various “other 

defendants who heard and witnessed the unlawful actions.” Plaintiff alleges that the crime scene 

photos expose that the grenade was not detonated as reported by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendants contend the OC vapor grenade detonated on Sergeant Jimenez duty belt, but the 

crime scene photographs show that there is no white OC vapor powder on Sergeant Jimenez’s 

duty belt or on Plaintiff or any Defendant. Plaintiff claims there are lies that Defendants are 

covering up. Plaintiff says he will not use any hearsay statements or statement of self-belief and 

“now clearly stated the cognizable claim in which relief can be given.” 

Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants “in unison” acted with deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. The crime scene photos “will show that all medical reports 

were forced and falsely reported. There was never any active OC pepper spray or vapor on or 

near Plaintiff.” Plaintiff alleges that the “cover up was physical force that left Plaintiff seriously

beaten with an array of injuries,” including to his left eye. Plaintiff alleges “the exhibits 

originally submitted will not corroborate with what Defendants documented within all the 

medical reports. The crime scene photographs will instantly prove Plaintiff’s allegations to be 

factual and true.” Plaintiff concludes that he “has clearly given facts” to the Court to state a 

cognizable claim.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages.

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 8
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

III. Discussion

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation 

omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not include sufficient factual allegations to state a claim 

that is plausible on its face as Defendants Jimenez, Rodriguez, Huckleberry, Rye and Hernandez. 

Indeed, the first amended complaint includes fewer facts than the original complaint. Plaintiff 

was advised in the prior screening order that an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint and that Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to 

the prior or superseded pleading.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Local Rule 220. 

Plaintiff was also cautioned in the prior screening that Plaintiff’s general, conclusory 

allegations against Defendants are not sufficient. Plaintiff was previously informed that at this 

stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s well plead factual allegations are taken as true. Yet, Plaintiff 

includes minimal facts as to what happened and who did what, and instead argues conclusions 

and what he thinks the evidence will show. The allegations continue to be unclear as to what 

happened and who was involved, as Plaintiff has not stated the facts. Plaintiff has been unable to 

cure this deficiency.

B. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be 

subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party 

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 8
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

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link 

between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by 

Plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 

611 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed. 2d 561 (1976). The Ninth 

Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, 

within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s 

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the 

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Plaintiff has failed to link each of the Defendants to any constitutional violation. Plaintiff 

does not identify any individual Defendant in the allegations of his complaint, other than Jimenez,

and attribute any specific conduct to the named Defendants. As previously advised, Plaintiff 

cannot merely lump all Defendants together and fail to state what each person did or did not do 

that caused the alleged violation(s) of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s complaint does not 

allege what each Defendant did or did not do that resulted in violation of his constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff has been unable to cure this deficiency.

C. Supervisory Liability

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the Sergeants or Lieutenant liable based solely upon 

their supervisory roles, he may not do so. Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel 

for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 676–77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 

934 (9th Cir. 2002). “A supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the 

constitutional deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s 

wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted); accord Lemire v. California Dep't of Corr. and 

Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “Under the latter theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt 

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 8
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

personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient 

that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of a 

constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 

(9th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

D. Eighth Amendment – Excessive Force

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 

2006). The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) 

(citations omitted). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must 

provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–33 (1994) (quotations omitted).

For claims of excessive physical force, the issue is “whether force was applied in a goodfaith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Relevant factors for this consideration include “the extent of injury...[,] the 

need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the 

threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ and ‘any efforts made to temper the 

severity of a forceful response.’” Id. (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 1078, 1085 (1986)).

However, “[t]he 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.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 

559 U.S. 34, 37-38 (2010) (citation omitted). “An inmate who complains of a push or shove that 

causes no discernible injury almost certainly fails to state a valid excessive force claim.” Id.

(citation and internal quotations omitted).

Plaintiff’s complaint does not adequately allege a claim for excessive force in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. While plaintiff allege Defendants’ conduct with “malice and 

forethought” and calculated to cause physical harm, these assertions are insufficient because they 

are no more than conclusory and formulaic recitations of the applicable law. See Bell Atl. Corp v. 

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 8
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

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff has not stated any facts of what happened and who 

was involved. Plaintiff was previously informed that the Court could not determine who did what, 

which Defendants were involved, and which were not. In Plaintiff’s amended complaint, there 

are fewer facts as to what happened and who was involved. Plaintiff has been unable to cure this 

deficiency.

E. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

To allege a claim of deliberate indifference, plaintiff must show he had a serious medical 

need and defendants were deliberately indifferent to that need. A medical need is serious “if the 

failure to treat the prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the 

‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’ ” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 

1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(en banc). Indications of a serious medical need include “the presence of a medical condition that 

significantly affects an individual’s daily activities.” Id. at 1059-60. By establishing the existence 

of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the objective requirement for proving an Eighth 

Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff fails to include any factual allegations 

as to which Defendant knew what about his condition and what actions each Defendant did or did 

not take. Plaintiff has been unable to cure this deficiency.

F. False Reports

A “complaint alleging that an officer filed a false report, by itself, fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted.” Koch v. Austin, 2006 WL 403818, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 

2006), adopted by 2006 WL 842585 (Mar. 28, 2006). A cognizable claim is stated only if there is 

evidence that the false report was retaliatory, or the inmate is not afforded procedural due process 

in the hearing on the disciplinary charge. See Pratt v. Rowland, 769 F.Supp.1128, 1134 (N.D. 

Cal. 1991) (filing false report states a claim only if retaliatory); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 

949, 953 (2d Cir. 1986) (guards’ “filing of unfounded charges did not give rise to a per se 

constitutional violation actionable under section 1983”); Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 

(9th Cir. 1989) (claim based on falsity of charges, standing alone, did not state a constitutional 

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

claim) and Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir. 1984) (guards’ fabrication of 

evidence does not state a claim if procedural protections are provided during disciplinary 

hearing).

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a cognizable section 

1983 claim for relief. Despite being provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, 

Plaintiff has been unable to cure the identified deficiencies and further leave to amend is not 

warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge to 

this action.

Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure 

to state a cognizable section 1983 claim.

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 8