Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00180/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00180-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL A. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MASON; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-180 SI (pr)

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

This is the second time the same civil rights complaint has been filed by Manuel A.

Gonzales. He first filed it to commence Case No. C 05-113 SI and voluntarily dismissed it after

the court had done an order on initial review but before any defendant had been served with

process. Gonzales has an extensive history of an on-again, off-again interest in litigating his

actions. His amended complaint states that he has four voluntary dismissals in addition to the

dismissal of Case No. C 05-113 SI, as well as seven dismissals for failure to prosecute. 

Gonzales is now incarcerated at the state prison in Tehachapi, although the claims

asserted in the amended complaint pertain to acts and omissions that occurred while he was

incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad in 2003. His amended complaint is

now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. For ease of reference, the court

will discuss the allegations of each claim separately in the discussion section below.

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Gonzalez filed a complaint on January 10, 2007. The complaint referred to several attachments

that were not attached to it. The court ordered him to file the missing attachments. He did, and filed

a complete pleading on March 8, 2007, which is referred to as the amended complaint. The amended

complaint is the same as the complaint filed in Case No. C 05-113 SI, but for the deletion of two claims

the court found insufficient in the 2005 action and the deletion of a couple of unnamed defendants. 

2

DISCUSSION

A. Review of Amended Complaint1

1. Legal Standards

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

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

any claims which 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. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

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

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

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

2. The Claims

a. Claim 1

Gonzalez alleges the following: At a committee meeting on June 24, 2003, Gonzalez was

sick and coughed, unintentionally causing some spit to fly in the direction of the committee

members. Gonzales was then taken elsewhere and beaten up by correctional officers Wilcots,

T. Mason, and John Doe. The following individuals gave orders to assault and knew of the

orders to assault Gonzalez: Captain Mandeville, CC-I Meden, CC-II Winn, and correctional

officer ("C/O") Roach. Amended Complaint, p. 5. 

"[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A plaintiff may use Doe defendant designations to refer to defendants whose names are

unknown to plaintiff. Although the use of Doe defendants is acceptable to withstand dismissal

of the complaint at the initial review stage, using Doe defendants creates its own problem: those

persons cannot be served with process in this action until they are identified by their real names.

 The court will not stall this action while plaintiff tries to learn the name of the Doe defendants.

Rather, plaintiff must promptly take steps to discover the names of the unnamed defendants and

provide that information to the court in an amendment to his pleading no later than October 5,

2007; any unnamed or Doe defendants whose true name and correct address have not been

provided by that deadline will be dismissed from this action. The burden remains on the

plaintiff; the court will not undertake to investigate the names and identities of unnamed

defendants.

3

Although the amended complaint suffices for pleading purposes to state a claim for relief

against these numerous defendants, generalized allegations against numerous defendant without

any factual specifics – such as the allegations that numerous people knew of Gonzalez's need

for care for several months and did not provide it – will not suffice to withstand summary

judgment, let alone to enable Gonzalez to prevail at any trial. 

3

of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to

cause harm." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). 

Liberally construed, the allegations of the amended complaint state a cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim against defendants Wilcots, Mason and John Doe for using excessive force

on Gonzalez on June 24, 2003.2

 The amended complaint also adequately pleads a claim against

defendants Mandeville, Meden, Winn, and Roach who allegedly ordered that use of force on

Gonzales. 

b. Claim 2

Gonzalez alleges in Claim 2 that he did not receive needed medical care after he was

assaulted as alleged in Claim 1. MTA A. Mendoza did not document his injuries and did not

obtain needed medical attention for them. Gonzalez "bought the matter of the injuries to the

attention of the[se] defendants with no 'adequate medical attention given:'" Dr. J. Pistone, Dr.

C.D. Lee, MTA S. Johnson, MTA A. Mendoza, MTA K. Robinson, MTA D. Hussey, MTA V.

Bias, MTA C. Cuykendall, Dr. Gary Haffner and Dr. Richard L. Mattson.3

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment encompasses

claims concerning prison officials' attention to the medical needs of inmates. Deliberate

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

indifference to medical needs may violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel

and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To plead a claim that

the response of prison officials to a prisoner's medical needs was constitutionally deficient, the

prisoner must allege (1) a serious medical need and (2) deliberate indifference to that need by

prison officials. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

Liberally construed, the allegations of the amended complaint state a cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim against defendants MTA A. Mendoza, Dr. Pistone, Dr. C.D. Lee, MTA S.

Johnson, MTA K. Robinson, MTA D. Hussey, MTA V. Bias, MTA C. Cuykendall, Dr. Gary

Haffner and Dr. Richard L. Mattson.

c. Claim 3

In this claim, Gonzalez alleges that he was housed in the general population from his

arrival at the prison on June 3, 2003 until June 24, 2003, even though he was in danger if placed

in the general population. The following defendants decided to leave him in general population

and put him in danger: Captain Mandeville, CCI Meden, CCII Winn, and P.H.D. Hamlin. 

In addition to covering excessive force claims and medical care claims, the Eighth

Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment also encompasses claims concerning

prison officials' attention to the safety of inmates. Prison and jail officials must take reasonable

measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).

In particular, officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. See id. at 833; Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982); Gillespie v.

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1980). A prisoner may state a § 1983 claim against

prison officials only where the officials acted with "deliberate indifference" to the threat of

serious harm or injury to an inmate by another prisoner. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457,

459 (9th Cir. 1986). Liberally construed, the allegations of the amended complaint state a claim

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In Claim 3, Gonzalez also claims he was subjected to retaliatory activities while he was

housed at prisons in the Central District before he was moved to Salinas Valley. It does not

appear that Gonzalez intended to make those the subject of a claim in this amended complaint

because he did not name any defendants for such claim, but if he did intend to include them,

those claims are now dismissed without prejudice to Gonzalez filing an action in the Central

District of California concerning those activities. Claims based on acts that occurred at another

time at another prison from Salinas Valley and were done by persons other than those named in

this amended complaint are not properly joined in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

5

for relief against defendants Captain Mandeville, CCI Meden, CCII Winn, and P.H.D. Hamlin.4

d. Claim 4

Gonzalez alleges in Claim 4 that he was subjected to excessive force on June 4, 2003,

after he objected to a particular cell placement. Although Gonzalez was not resisting, two

correctional officers "attempted to drag [him] and then slammed [him] repeatedly" to put him

in a cell. Amended Complaint, p. 18. He also claims that several correctional officers

fabricated evidence that he resisted peace officers during the incident. Gonzalez alleges that

correctional lieutenant C. Donnahoe substantiated the fabricated charge on July 15, 2003, and

that correctional sergeant S. Thacker, and correctional officers T. Stevens, G. Goodwin, and J.

Lewis were involved in excessive force and fabricating evidence about the incident. The

disciplinary charge that was based on the fabricated evidence was eventually dismissed on

February 3, 2004. 

Gonzalez adequately pleads a claim for relief against defendants Thacker, Stevens,

Goodwin, and J. Lewis under the Eighth Amendment for the use of excessive force on him on

June 4, 2003. 

The portion of the claim that alleges that several correctional officer fabricated evidence

against him is dismissed. A prisoner has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being

falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty

interest. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989); Freeman v. Rideout, 808

F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 982 (1988). The allegedly false charges also

did not result in any actual discipline, as the charge allegedly was dismissed several months

later.

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 

e. Claim 5

Gonzalez alleges in Claim 7 that he was subjected to malicious and sadistic behavior on

March 15, 2004, when he was placed in a stand-up cage for over six hours and his requests to

use a bathroom were refused. Because he was not allowed to use a bathroom, he had to urinate

and defecate on himself and stand in the waste. Correctional officers Razo, Martinez, Machuca,

and Ramirez caused this situation.

Gonzalez also complains that he was falsely charged in a CDC-115 with refusal to obey

orders on March 15. The false charges were not set aside during the disciplinary appeal process

by several individuals who reviewed the charges and appeals. 

Construing the amended complaint liberally, as it must, the court determines that the

allegations adequately plead an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Razo, Martinez,

Machuca and Ramirez. It appears that Gonzalez is framing his claim as one for malicious and

sadistic punishment, rather than for deliberate indifference. The claim would have to be

dismissed under a deliberate indifference standard because the condition, while undoubtedly

unpleasant, does not rise to the level of an objectively serious condition which is necessary for

a deliberate indifference kind of Eighth Amendment claim.

The amended complaint does not, however, state a claim for relief against the various

officials who did not rule in Gonzalez's favor during the disciplinary and appeal process

following the incident on March 15, 2004. Any claim based on the simple failure to grant his

administrative appeals or process them properly is not cognizable in a § 1983 action because

there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system for

California inmates. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Antonelli v.

Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). The state of California has not created a protected

interest in an administrative appeal system in prison. California Code of Regulations, title 15

sections 1073 and 3084 et seq. grant prisoners in the county jails and state prisons a purely

procedural right: the right to have a prison appeal. The regulations simply require the

establishment of a procedural structure for reviewing prisoner complaints and set forth no

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

substantive standards; instead, they provide for flexible appeal time limits, see Cal. Code Regs.

tit. 15, § 3084.6, and, at most, that "no reprisal shall be taken against an inmate or parolee for

filing an appeal," id. § 3084.1(d). A provision that merely provides procedural requirements,

even if mandatory, cannot form the basis of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See

Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1430 (prison

grievance procedure is procedural right that does not give rise to protected liberty interest

requiring procedural protections of Due Process Clause). Gonzalez had no federal constitutional

right to a properly functioning appeal system. An incorrect decision on an administrative appeal

or failure to process the appeal in a particular way therefore did not amount to a violation of his

right to due process. The claims concerning the handling of his appeals are dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint states claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as

discussed above. Other than the defendants named in the next paragraph, all other named

defendants are dismissed from this action.

2. The court has determined that the amended complaint states claims for relief

against the following 25 individuals, all of whom apparently work at Salinas Valley State Prison.

- correctional officer Wilcots

- correctional officer T. Mason

- captain Mandeville

- CC-I Meden

- CC-II Winn

- correctional officer Roach

- MTA A. Mendoza

- Dr. J. Pistone

- Dr. C.D. Lee

- MTA S. Johnson

- MTA K. Robinson

- MTA D. Hussey

- MTA V. Bias

- MTA C. Cuykendall

- Dr. Gary Haffner

- Dr. Richard L. Mattson

- psychiatrist P.H.D. Hamlin

- correctional sergeant S. Thacker

- correctional officer T. Stevens

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

- correctional officer G. Goodwin

- correctional officer J. Lewis

- correctional officer S. Razo

- correctional officer Martinez

- correctional officer Machuca

- correctional officer Ramirez

3. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of this order upon each

of the defendants listed in paragraph 2.

4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than October 19, 2007, defendants must file and serve a motion

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than November 23, 2007.

Plaintiff must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as

he prepares his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. [¶] 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants'

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. (See Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than December 7, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

5. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

court informed of any 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). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2007 _________________ _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 9 of 9