Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00378-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERROD L. HERNDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. TOSTAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00378-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed on March 18, 2016.

I.

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on March 28, 2016. (ECF No. 5.)

Case 1:16-cv-00378-SAB Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 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

1915(e)(2)(B).

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 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at North Kern State Prison, brings this civil rights action against 

defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at North Kern State Prison. Plaintiff 

names the following individual defendants: Dr. Tostand; Correctional Officer (C/O) Ramos; 

Nurse Tiffany Thomas. Plaintiff also refers to an unidentified sergeant. Plaintiff‟s statement of 

claim, in its entirety, follows: “Being treated improperly. Our Imam does not have any money to 

give one jumuah prayer on Fridays.” 

///

//

Case 1:16-cv-00378-SAB Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Civil Rights Act

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). “Section 1983 is not itself a source 

of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 

2012)(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989))(internal quotation marks 

omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or 

causal connection, between each defendant‟s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal 

rights. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts indicating any conduct by any of the 

Defendants. In order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual 

defendant, describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that 

defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, 

what happened. Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the 

particular right described by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The complaint should 

therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

B. Medical Care

To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging that he was denied adequate medical care, he is 

advised of the following. 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. 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. 

Case 1:16-cv-00378-SAB Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 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

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 at 1096). 

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. 

C. Religious Expression

Plaintiff refers to Friday prayers, and an unidentified Imam. To the extent that Plaintiff is 

claiming that correctional officials interfered with or prevented Plaintiff from exercising his 

religious beliefs, Plaintiff is advised of the following. A person asserting a free exercise claim 

must show that the government action in question substantially burdens the person‟s practice of 

their religion. Graham v. C.I.R., 822 F.2d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 1987), aff‟d sub nom. Hernandez v. 

C.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989). “A substantial burden . . . place[s] more than an inconvenience 

on religious exercise; it must have a tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their 

religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to 

violate his beliefs.” Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 981, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013)(quoting Guru Nanak 

Sikh Soc‟y of Yuba City v. Cnty. of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 998 (9th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation 

marks and alterations omitted).

“The right to exercise religious practices and beliefs does not terminate at the prison 

door. The free exercise right, however, is necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration, and 

may be curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain prison security.” 

McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir. 1987)(per curiam)(citations omitted); see also

O‟Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987); Shakur v. Schriro,514 F.3d 878, 883-84 

(9th Cir. 2008). In order to implicate the Free Exercise Clause, the prisoner‟s belief must be both 

sincerely held and rooted in religious belief. Shakur, 514 F.3d at 885.

Case 1:16-cv-00378-SAB Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 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

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has not charged any of the named Defendants with any conduct that constitutes a 

deprivation of a protected interest of Plaintiff‟s. The complaint therefore fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, 

however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll v. Carlson, 

809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff 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)(no “buckshot” complaints).

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

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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 supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed March 18, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

a first amended complaint; and

Case 1:16-cv-00378-SAB Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 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

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

Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to 

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00378-SAB Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 6 of 6