Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00313/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00313-5/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

LLOYD ALBERT PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT 

BUTLER’S MOTION TO DISMISS BE 

GRANTED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THE 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT BUTLER

(ECF No. 25)

FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Lloyd Albert Payne, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 5, 2013. This action proceeds 

on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on June 23, 2014, against Defendants Gutierrez 

(erroneously sued as Gutierres) and Butler for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

On October 29, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against 

Defendant Butler pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 

(ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on November 17, 2014. (ECF No. 26.) Defendants 

did not file a reply and the motion has been submitted upon the record without oral argument. 

Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

A. Legal Standard 

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a 

claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 

1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 

1762 (2012). In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the operative 

pleading. Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. 

Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Schneider v. California Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 

1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). 

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 

129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 

1955, 1964-65 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. 

U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must accept the factual 

allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, DanielsHall, 629 F.3d at 998; Sanders, 504 F.3d at 910; Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 

1153 (9th Cir. 2000), and pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed 

and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

B. Discussion

1. Relevant Allegations in Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

To prevent greater harm to my back I was given Medical restrictions not to stand 

for no longer on hour...While at Wasco State Prison working in the retherm 

kitchen I told all staff I could not stand for over a[n] hour due to chronic back 

pain. . . On June 6, 2012, when [Defendant Guitierres] claim I was faking and 

removed from the kitchen at 10:00 pm with Sgt. Butler who both forced me to 

stand in a cage from 10:00 pm to 4:00 am Punishing me to stand in a cage causing 

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 6
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

me to suffer greater back pain/spasms by punishing me in a cage over one hour. 

On June 7, 2012, to punish me again I was forced to stand in the same cage from 

8:00 pm to 4:00 am resulting in an even greater back spasms and chronic pain. 

Ever[] since the night . . . June 6 and June 7 I have more back spasm from having 

been cruel and unusually punished by the officers who committed acts of cruelty 

against me with out justification. 

(ECF No. 13, pp. 3-4.)

2. Analysis

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.

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains 

while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks 

omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials 

were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 

F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 

(9th Cir. 1998). This requires the prisoner to demonstrate (1) the existence of an objectively 

serious risk of harm and (2) that, subjectively, prison officials knew of and disregarded that risk. 

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 6
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

E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 847; Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150-51; Foster, 554 F.3d at 812. 

In determining whether a deprivation of a basic necessity is sufficiently serious to satisfy 

the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, a court must consider the circumstances, 

nature, and duration of the deprivation. Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731. With respect to the objective 

element, Plaintiff has alleged that he was at serious risk of harm from being forced to stand in a 

cage for six hours and eight hours respectively for two consecutive days despite a back condition 

preventing him from standing for more than one hour at a time. Defendant Butler’s arguments

that Plaintiff has not alleged any prison conditions that fall below an objectively constitutional 

standard are not persuasive. Plaintiff alleges the necessary objective element of an Eighth 

Amendment claim. See, e.g., Hope, 536 U.S. at 738 (punitive treatment which amounts to 

gratuitous infliction of wanton and unnecessary pain is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment). 

Defendant Butler’s additional argument that attachments to Plaintiff’s complaint demonstrate a 

penological purpose for his placement in the cage, i.e., Defendant Gutierrez’ belief that Plaintiff 

was refusing to work, is contradicted by Plaintiff’s allegations that he was being punished by 

Defendant Gutierrez and had a legitimate back condition. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (actions

devoid of legitimate penological purpose violate the Eighth Amendment). However, Defendant 

Butler appropriately contends that Plaintiff has failed to allege whether it was Defendant Butler 

who forced him to stand in the cage on the second day, June 7, 2012, or how Plaintiff was forced 

to “stand” the entire time. 

With respect to the subjective element, Plaintiff alleges that he informed all staff working 

in the retherm kitchen that he could not stand due to chronic back pain. Defendant Butler 

correctly notes that there are no allegations demonstrating that Defendant Butler ever had actual 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s back condition or restrictions. In particular, there are no allegations that 

Defendant Butler was part of the kitchen staff or that he knew of the alleged medical restrictions 

that prevented Plaintiff from standing for one hour. 

For the reasons discussed, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim against Defendant Butler and will recommend that Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the second amended complaint against Defendant Butler for failure to state claim be 

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 6
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

granted. 

Although Plaintiff suggests that he can allege additional facts demonstrating that he 

expressly informed Defendant Butler regarding his back condition, Defendant Butler was 

responsible for placing him in the cage on the second day, there was no justifiable reason for 

placing him in the cage, and he could not sit in the cage, such new allegations raised in the 

opposition “are irrelevant for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes.” Schneider., 151 F.3d at 1197 n.1. “The 

focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Id. Accordingly, the Court considers 

the new allegations raised in Plaintiff’s opposition for the sole purpose of determining whether or 

not it is appropriate to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his claims. The Court must grant pro se 

litigants leave to amend the complaint “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be 

cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc) (citing Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). In this instance, it appears 

that Plaintiff can cure the defects in his claim against Defendant Butler by the allegation of 

additional facts. The Court will therefore recommend that leave to amend be granted. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on October 29, 2014, be GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff be GRANTED leave to file a third amended complaint clarifying his Eighth 

Amendment claim against Defendant Butler.1

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff should wait, and not file an amendment in response to these Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff will 

be directed to take further action at the appropriate time by the assigned United States District Judge after the Findings 

and Recommendations are submitted for consideration and a ruling.

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 6
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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 6