Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01393/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01393-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAZ NELSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01393 DLB PC

ORDER DISMSSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Chad Nelson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on September 14, 2015. He names the Secretary 

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and members of the 

“Classification and Staff Representatives” as Defendants.1

LEGAL STANDARD

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. 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on November 19, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 7
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

§ 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 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

„state a claim that is plausible on its face.‟” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient 

to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is an African-American male and is currently incarcerated at California State Prison 

in Lancaster, California. The events at issue occurred while Plaintiff was housed at North Kern State 

Prison.

Plaintiff alleges that he contracted Valley Fever while housed at North Kern State Prison. As 

a result, he was hospitalized, underwent surgery and placed on medications to restore his health. He 

still has chronic pain and chronic skin problems.

Plaintiff explains that housing decisions are made by a CDCR Committee known as the 

Classification and Staff Representative (“CSR”). 

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 7
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

He alleges that CDCR has known for twenty years that the region in which they built North 

Kern State Prison was a region where Valley Fever existed in the soil. CDCR also knew that 

African-Americans were more susceptible to Valley Fever.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff states that his Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights have been violated. He sues the CDCR Secretary for knowing the dangers of 

Valley Fever and “its effects on the Black Race” but still permitting Plaintiff to be housed in the 

region without determining that he would not be in danger. ECF No. 1, at 3.

He also sues “members of the CSR” for knowingly endorsing Plaintiff to be housed at North 

Kern State Prison despite knowledge that persons of African-American descent were highly 

susceptible to contracting Valley Fever. ECF No. 1, at 3. 

C. ANALYSIS

1. Linkage

As explained above, section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff‟s 

constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 

580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 

2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim, Plaintiff must 

demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; 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, 297 F.3d at 934. 

Therefore, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the violation at 

issue. Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat 

superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1020-21; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235; Jones, 

297 F.3d at 934, and supervisory personnel may only be held liable if they “participated in or 

directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them,” Taylor v. List, 

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), 

cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009). Some 

culpable action or inaction must be attributable to Defendants and while the creation or enforcement 

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 7
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

of, or acquiescence in, an unconstitutional policy, as alleged here, may support a claim, the policy 

must have been the moving force behind the violation. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205; Jeffers v. Gomez, 

267 F.3d 895, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2001); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446-47 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

In his complaint, Plaintiff names the Secretary of CDCR and members of the CSR. He does 

not, however, identify any individuals and explain how they were personally involved in the alleged 

deprivation of his rights. Plaintiff‟s allegations are vague, and do not sufficiently connect any 

individual with the actions complained of. He must do more than set forth conclusory, speculative 

allegations.

Insofar as Plaintiff names Defendants in supervisory positions, he must demonstrate that 

Defendants “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to 

prevent them.” 

Plaintiff therefore fails to link any Defendant with specific acts and fails to state a claim.

2. Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 

S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and often 

are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. 

Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, 

conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of 

decency that mark the progress of a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 

F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737, 122 S.Ct. 

2508 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. 

Plaintiff must plausibly allege that Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference in taking, or 

failing to take, the alleged actions. See Lua v. Smith, 2015 WL 1565370 (E.D. Cal. 2015). While the 

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 7
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

Court recognizes that the exact circumstances required to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment 

based on Valley Fever exposure are not clear, it is well settled that exposure to, and contraction of, 

Valley Fever while housed at an endemic institution are not, by themselves, sufficient to state a 

claim under the Eighth Amendment. In other words, the premise that the location of North Kern 

State Prison is so inherently dangerous due to the presence of Valley Fever cannot support a 

constitutional violation. See Hines v. Youssef, 2015 WL 164215, at *4 (E.D.Cal. 2015) (rejecting 

African-American asthmatic prisoner‟s Eighth Amendment claim arising from exposure to and 

contraction of Valley Fever); accord Williams v. Biter, 2015 WL 1830770, at *3 (E.D.Cal. 2015). 

This premise is unacceptable where free citizens residing in the surrounding areas tolerate this 

increased risk, regardless of race or medical condition. “An individual who lives out of custody . . . 

anywhere in the Southern San Joaquin Valley is at relatively high risk exposure to Coccidioides 

immitis spores,” and “[u]nless there is something about a prisoner‟s conditions of confinement that 

raises the risk of exposure substantially above the risk experienced by the surrounding communities, 

it cannot be reasoned that the prisoner is involuntarily exposed to a risk society would not tolerate.”

Hines, at *4. 

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff‟s allegations are speculative, at best, and do not 

state a claim against any Defendant. He does not sufficient allege that any Defendant knew of a 

substantial risk to his health, specifically, and failed to address it. A general allegation that 

Defendants violated his rights because they knew that African-Americans were more susceptible to 

Valley Fever, yet placed Plaintiff in a prison in an endemic reason, does not suggest that they of a 

substantial risk to Plaintiff and failed to take action. While Plaintiff may be able to ultimately state a 

claim against an individual who placed him at North Kern State Prison, he must sufficiently 

demonstrate that this individual knew of a substantial risk to him and failed to prevent it.

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

3. Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

Plaintiff attempts to assert causes of action under the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth 

Amendments. However, he has not alleged any facts that would suggest a violation of these

amendments.

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 7
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

The Fourth Amendment deals with searches and seizures and would not apply under 

Plaintiff‟s facts. Similarly, Plaintiff does not include any facts that would implicate the Sixth 

Amendment, which relates to the right of self-representation.

Insofar as Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, he is advised that his 

claim is properly addressed under the Eighth Amendment. The concept of substantive due process is 

expanded only reluctantly and therefore, if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific 

constitutional provision, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific 

provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 

833, 843, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff cites the Fourteenth Amendment to support some type of 

discrimination claim, he has failed to allege any facts suggesting that any Defendant discriminated 

against him because of his race. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; Serrano v. 

Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th 

Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim under the Fourth, Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff does not state any cognizable claims. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the 

opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes, in good faith, he can cure the identified 

deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff 

amends, he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under 

section 1983, it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s 

constitutional rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the mere 

theory of respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th 

Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 6 of 7
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

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in 

this order, and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 7 of 7