Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01252-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGINA JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-1252-DC-JDP (P)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California State Prison, Los Angeles, alleges that defendants 

violated his Eighth Amendment rights on two occasions in March 2022. ECF No. 32 at 3. After 

reviewing the second amended complaint, I find that the Eighth Amendment excessive force 

claims against defendants Herrera, Regina Johnson, E. Johnson, and J. Bouldry based on the 

March 1, 2022 incident are suitable to proceed. The claims related to the incident on March 4, 

2022 should be dismissed without prejudice as insufficiently related; plaintiff must pursue them, 

if at all, in a separate suit. 

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 34 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 5
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 federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

The complaint contains two claims against multiple defendants that are insufficiently 

related to proceed in a single action. First, plaintiff alleges that, on March 1, 2022, defendant 

Herrera violated his Eighth Amendment rights by unnecessarily using pepper spray against him. 

ECF No. 32 at 9. He claims that defendants Regina Johnson, E. Johnson, and J. Bouldry were 

present on that date, but failed to intervene. Id. Second, plaintiff alleges that defendants Herrera, 

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 34 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 5
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

Schuman, White, Burkhart and various other officers used excessive force (or failed to intervene 

to stop the use of force) on March 4, 2022, during a transfer. Id. at 10, 22, 24-25. 

There may be some overlap between the two claims insofar as both involve defendant 

Herrera’s alleged use of excessive force and the alleged failure of supervisory defendants to 

protect him, but the claims are otherwise factually distinct. The first claim presents a more 

limited incident of force involving only a few defendants, during which only Herrera is alleged to 

have used unnecessary force. By contrast, the second claim involves numerous officers and 

medical providers who attacked or failed to stop an attack during a transfer. Specifically, plaintiff 

alleges that Herrera, Schuman, and Burkhart all struck him repeatedly, while defendants White, 

Avila, Corral, Diaz, and Whitecotton were present and failed to intervene. Id. at 23-26. 

Additionally, the second claim is linked to a claim for inadequate medical care, insofar as plaintiff 

alleges that defendants Pohovich, Barcellona, Thayer, Bell-Sprinkel, Abdule, Thompson, and 

“Doe” failed to secure him medical treatment for the wounds he sustained in the March 4 attack. 

Id. at 27-30.

Complicating matters further, plaintiff alleges that every defendant’s alleged misconduct 

was undertaken in retaliation for him voicing his opinions on their prior wrongful conduct. Id. at 

32-33. This claim, however, is non-cognizable. Broad claims of retaliation, unsupported by 

specific allegations, against numerous defendants, do not meet federal pleading standards. Ivey v. 

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and conclusory allegations of civil 

rights violations are insufficient). 

I also find that plaintiff’s claim for an “unconstitutional pattern or custom” against 

defendants Lynch and Burkhart is non-cognizable. He broadly alleges that these supervisory 

defendants have engendered such a custom by failing to adequately supervise and discipline 

correctional officers who use excessive force. ECF No. 32 at 38-39. Assuming this claim is 

sufficiently related to the March 1, 2022 use of force incident, plaintiff has failed to provide 

specific allegations that either of these defendants had an unwritten policy of enabling 

correctional officers who used excessive force. The fact that excessive force was allegedly used 

against him does not compel such a conclusion. This claim should also be dismissed. 

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 34 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 5
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

I recommend that only plaintiff’s excessive force claims related to the March 1, 2022 use 

of force incident proceed. “On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, 

add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. 

Plaintiff may bring his other claims, if he chooses, in a separate suit. Given that the statute of 

limitations for a California prisoner’s section 1983 claim is effectively four years, I find that 

plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the severance of claims. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 

927 (9th Cir. 2004) (“For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s statute of 

limitations for personal injury actions, along with the forum state’s law regarding tolling, 

including equitable tolling, except to the extent any of these laws is inconsistent with federal 

law.”); Lewis v. Khan, No.: 3:19-cv-1254-WQH-AHG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141386, *8 (C.D. 

Cal. Aug. 20, 2019) (“[T]he effective statute of limitations for most California prisoners is three 

years for claims accruing before January 1, 2003, corresponding to a one-year limitations period 

and two years for statutory tolling, and four years for claims accruing thereafter . . . .”). His claim

arising from the second March 2022 incident of force appears capable of being timely brought in 

another suit.

This case has been pending at the screening stage since July 2022. At this point, I find 

that the severance of claims rather than further opportunities to amend is appropriate. 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff should be permitted to proceed with 

his Eighth Amendment claims related to the March 1, 2022 incident of force against defendants 

Herrera, Regina Johnson, E. Johnson, and J. Bouldry. All other claims should be dismissed for 

the reasons stated above. If these recommendations are adopted, I will direct service for the 

aforementioned defendants. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 34 Filed 01/14/25 Page 4 of 5
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

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 34 Filed 01/14/25 Page 5 of 5