Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05779/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05779-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

JIMMY ROYCE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALVIDREZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5779 AWI SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION(Doc. 1.) 

 Jimmy Royce Johnson (“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 filed the instant

action on May 28, 2004, alleging that certain individuals violated his Eighth Amendment right by

physically hitting and kicking him. Plaintiff names J. Alvidrez, W. Childers, T. Mosley, W.

Kirby, G. Hensley, and T Wilson, all Correctional Officers at Wasco State Prison as Defendants. 

The Complaint seeks compensatory damages.

On November 14, 2005, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave

to amend. On November 28, 2005, November 30, 2005, and December 7, 2005, Plaintiff informed

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 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 that he did not wish to file an Amended Complaint but instead wished to proceed on

those claims found to be cognizable by the Court. Pursuant to this request, the Court now issues

these Findings and Recommendation to the District Court. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 January 13, 2004, Defendant Wilson opened his cell door and

Defendants Alvidrez and Childers entered his cell and assaulted Plaintiff by hitting him with

closed fist. Defendants Kirby, Mosley and Hensley arrived seconds later, handcuffed Plaintiff

and placed him in leg irons and then began to kick him violently in the head and body. 

Defendants Kirby and Mosley pushed Plaintiff out of his cell and again hit him numerous times

in the face. Plaintiff states he was given five stitches above his eye, a blackeye, fractured jaw,

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 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

broken foot and multiple abrasions all over his body as a result of the attack. Plaintiff alleges the

attack was the result of a conspiracy among the Defendants. As noted above, Plaintiff is seeking

compensatory damages. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. 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 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 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(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). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

2. Eighth Amendment Claim - Excessive Force

“Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of

the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause [of the Eighth Amendment], 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, 7 (1992) (citing

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). “In determining whether the use of force was

wanton and unnecessary, it may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the

relationship between the need and the amount of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 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

the responsible officials,’ and ‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.’” 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment

inquiry, but does not end it.” Id. 

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. 

Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983

against Defendants Alvidrez, Childers, Kirby, Mosley and Hensley for use of excessive force.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8; Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152

L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.2004); Jackson v. Carey, 353

F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir.2003); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th

Cir.2002) However, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief against

Defendant Wilson. 

2. Conspiracy

In the context of conspiracy claims brought pursuant to Section 1983, such a complaint

must “allege [some] facts to support the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants.” 

Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992); Karim-Panahi v. Los

Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff must allege that

defendants conspired or acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance

of the conspiracy. Sykes v. State of California, 497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974). 

Plaintiff’s contention that the above named individuals conspired to harm him is

conclusory and alone is insufficient to state a claim for relief for conspiracy. Plaintiff must allege

facts supporting the existence of a conspiracy between defendants to violate his constitutional

rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a conspiracy claim against any of the named

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 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

Defendants. 

D. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the action proceed on the Eighth

Amendment claim against Defendants Alvidrez, Childers, Kirby, Mosley and Hensley for

excessive force and that all remaining claims and defendants be DISMISSED from the action. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 Page 5 of 5