Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02827/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02827-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBIE L. CRISP, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2827 JAM CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action 

for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12, 2015, the court dismissed 

plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an 

amended complaint.

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:14-cv-02827-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/28/15 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

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

The court has conducted the required screening with respect to plaintiff’s amended 

complaint and finds that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As he 

did in his original complaint, plaintiff asserts he is “morbidly obese” (5’ 7” & 500 pounds) and 

has not received adequate assistance at the California Health Care Facility to lose weight. 

Plaintiff does not allege he cannot reduce his caloric intake in a safe manner by dieting, nor that 

he cannot engage in exercise on his own. Plaintiff’s claim is essentially that he should be allowed 

to use physical therapy equipment at his prison to help him lose weight and that staff should be 

required to assist him with his training as he will then be able to maximize “caloric expenditure.”

1

 

However, failing to provide plaintiff with exercise equipment and / or something akin to a 

 

1

 While plaintiff asserts he suffers from various limitations as a result of his being overweight, 

like being confined to a wheelchair, he does not seek physical therapy with respect to those issues 

nor point to facts indicating it would be appropriate.

Case 2:14-cv-02827-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/28/15 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

personal trainer does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth 

Amendment, see Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979) (opportunity for outdoor 

exercise one hour each day satisfies the Eighth Amendment) nor amount to a violation under any 

other federal law. While plaintiff alleges that he has been “discriminated” against by prison 

officials, he fails to point to facts suggesting other inmates have access to exercise programs (not 

physical therapy for specific injuries) that plaintiff does not.

For these reasons, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s first amended complaint be 

dismissed. Because plaintiff has already been given one opportunity to amend his claims, and 

still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, granting plaintiff leave to amend again 

would be futile.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY recommended that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and

2. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 27, 2015

1

cris2827.14

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02827-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 3