Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01677/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01677-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL KLEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. MONTOYA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01677-SKO (PC)

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

First Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Michael Klein, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 17, 2013.

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

governmental entity or an 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). 

Case 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK Document 6 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 4
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 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

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). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California, brings this 

action against Defendant B. Montoya, a female correctional officer, for allegedly sexually abusing 

him on April 25, 2013, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was summoned to the telephone to speak with Defendant Montoya, 

who wanted to know why Plaintiff had not reported to work in the main kitchen. Plaintiff said he 

was sick and would get a lay-in from the doctor. Defendant Montoya asked Plaintiff if he was 

sick in the head, and he hung up the phone and returned to his bed area, unwilling to tolerate 

Defendant’s verbal abuse. 

Case 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK Document 6 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Approximately three or four minutes later, Defendant Montoya arrived at the housing unit 

from the kitchen and yelled, “Klein, get your punk ass down here.” (Comp., p. 3.) Defendant 

Montoya took Plaintiff outside, had him face the wall in a prone position, and groped his penis and 

testicles while telling him he was a “piece of shit.” (Id.)

B. Eighth Amendment Claim

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). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and only 

those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently 

grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 

112 S.Ct. 995 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). In order to state a claim for violation of 

the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that prison officials 

knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to him. E.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 

U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994); Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th 

Cir. 1998).

While the sexual abuse of prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment, Wood v. Beauclair, 

692 F.3d 1041, (9th Cir. 2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2012), 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a finding that the incident at issue rose to the level of sexual 

abuse, Watison, 668 F.3d 1113-14. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant 

Montoya for violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. In an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one opportunity to file an 

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

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, but it must state the named defendant did 

that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; 

Case 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK Document 6 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 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 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim 

under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK Document 6 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 4