Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00909-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LEONARD GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00909 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Gregory Leonard Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the Fresno County Jail 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed this action on June 13, 2014. He names the Fresno County Jail, Fresno County 

Sheriff Margaret Mims, and the Fresno County Jail Medical Staff as Defendants.1

A. SCREENING 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. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on June 20, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00909-DLB Document 6 Filed 12/02/14 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

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.

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). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; 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. Plaintiff must present 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). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

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

B. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail, where the events at issue 

occurred. 

Plaintiff alleges that between May 22, 2014, and May 24, 2014, three inmates were 

assaulted “in a 12 man minimum security housing.” ECF No. 1, at 4. Rather than Classification 

investigating the problem, the inmates were moved. 

Plaintiff states that he is in protective custody. On May 25, 2014, Plaintiff was assaulted in 

Case 1:14-cv-00909-DLB Document 6 Filed 12/02/14 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

the same housing unit and received lacerations from a razorblade. Plaintiff contends that the 

Fresno County Jail and Defendant Mims failed to properly and safely house him, which caused a 

dangerous environment. 

Plaintiff also alleges that overcrowding created unsafe housing conditions.

On May 25, 2014, Plaintiff received stitches to his face. His head hit the bars and he 

complained about face pain, but he did not receive x-rays or medication for two and one-half days. 

Plaintiff was never transported to a hospital, and he argues that the Fresno County Jail is not 

adequately supplied to treat certain wounds. Plaintiff suggests that the inside of his mouth was left 

untreated.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Fresno County Jail and Fresno County Jail Medical Staff

A local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a 

respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Dept. Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); 

Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 

1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Rather, a local government unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. 

Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185. 

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability 

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the ‘moving force’ 

behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 

667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989). 

Alternatively, and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local 

government unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson, 290 F.3d 

at 1186. Under this route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s 

deliberate indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit 

the constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the municipality 

Case 1:14-cv-00909-DLB Document 6 Filed 12/02/14 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

was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional 

violation.” Id.

Here, although Plaintiff names the Fresno County Jail and the Fresno County Jail Medical 

Staff, he makes no allegations that would sustain liability under Monell. He does not allege facts 

to support a claim that an alleged constitutional violation was the result of a deliberate policy, 

custom or practice instituted by Fresno County. He also fails to allege that any omission on the 

part of Fresno County caused an employee to commit a constitutional violation.

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against the Fresno County Jail and the Fresno 

County Jail Medical Staff. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend, but should only do so if he 

believes he can amend in good faith.

2. Failure to Protect

As an initial matter, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was a convicted prisoner or a pretrial 

detainee at the time of the events in question. However, while pretrial detainees’ rights are 

protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the standard for claims 

brought under the Eighth Amendment has long been used to analyze pretrial detainees’ conditions 

of confinement claims. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979); Simmons v. 

Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2010); Clouthier v. County of Contra 

Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1244 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide 

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (quotations omitted). Prison officials have 

a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other 

prisoners because being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal 

offenders pay for their offenses against society. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34 (quotation marks 

omitted); Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 

1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). However, prison officials are liable under the Eighth Amendment 

Case 1:14-cv-00909-DLB Document 6 Filed 12/02/14 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

only if they demonstrate deliberate indifference to conditions posing a substantial risk of serious 

harm to an inmate; and it is well settled that deliberate indifference occurs when an official acted 

or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

834, 841 (quotations omitted); Clem, 566 F.3d at 1181; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040.

Here, Plaintiff, a protective custody inmate, alleges that Defendant Mims and the Fresno 

County Jail failed to properly and safely house him. However, he does not sufficiently explain his 

claim. It is unclear whether the inmates who were assaulted ultimately assaulted Plaintiff after 

they were moved, or whether the alleged failure to investigate the prior assaults resulted in 

Plaintiff’s assault. Without sufficient factual detail, the Court cannot adequately analyze 

Plaintiff’s claim. Under either scenario, however, Plaintiff’s bare assertion that Defendant Mims 

and the Fresno County Jail failed to properly house him does not state a claim.

To the extent that Plaintiff suggests that overcrowding contributed to the assault, his 

allegation is insufficient to state a claim. Allegations of overcrowding, alone, are insufficient to 

state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981); 

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 471 (9th Cir.1989); Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d 

119, 120 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam).

Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a failure to protect claim. He will be permitted to 

amend, but he must keep in mind the above standards. 

3. Denial of Medical Care

Again, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner at the 

time of the events at issue. However, while pretrial detainees’ rights are protected under the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the standard for claims brought under the Eighth 

Amendment has long been used to analyze pretrial detainees’ conditions of confinement claims. 

Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1017-18; Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1242; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 

(9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the analysis is the same regardless of Plaintiff’s status.

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:14-cv-00909-DLB Document 6 Filed 12/02/14 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

2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that 

failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain 

or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 

(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which 

entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks 

omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

According to Plaintiff’s allegations, he received stitches on the day he was assaulted. He 

appears to contend that even though his head hit the bar and he complained of pain, he did not 

receive an x-ray or pain medication for two and one-half days. He also complains that he was 

never transported to a hospital, and contends that the Fresno County Jail is not adequately supplied 

to treat certain wounds. 

Plaintiff fails, however, to demonstrate that any Defendant acted with deliberate 

indifference. Not only does he fail to link any individual Defendant to his allegations of 

inadequate medical treatment, but he also fails to present sufficient facts surrounding the medical 

decisions of which he complains. 

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims for which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. In amending, Plaintiff should also clarify 

whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner at the time of the events at issue.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere 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. 

Case 1:14-cv-00909-DLB Document 6 Filed 12/02/14 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

2101 (2012). 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;

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: December 2, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00909-DLB Document 6 Filed 12/02/14 Page 7 of 7