Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01227/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01227-5/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

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

JOSE LEDESMA, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ADAME, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG-PC

 

SCREENING ORDER

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT ALL 

REMAINING CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE

(ECF NO. 23)

Jose Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 15, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file his Third Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 22). On that same day the Third Amended Complaint was filed. (ECF

No. 23). The Third Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

Pursuant to an order that will be entered concurrently with these findings and 

recommendations, the Court has found that Plaintiff has stated a claim against defendants 

Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for violations of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of 

confinement, against defendants Adame and Lundy for inadequate health care in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment. The Court has issued service of Plaintiff’s Third Amended 

Complaint to go forward on those claims.

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 11
2

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

As Plaintiff has failed to state any other claims, or claims against any other defendants, 

the Court is now recommending that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this 

case. Thus, this order only addresses the claims and defendants that the Court is 

recommending be dismissed.

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 Afrivolous 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). ANotwithstanding 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). 

A complaint is required to contain Aa 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 A[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, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare 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). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Iqbal 556 U.S. at 

678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

\\\

\\\

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 11
3

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

II. SUMMARY OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLANT

In February of 2011, Plaintiff was subject to a gang validation investigation by 

members of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)’s 

Institutional Gang Investigation Unit (“IGIU”)1assigned to the California State Prison, 

Centinela (“Centinela”). On March 6, 2011, Plaintiff challenged his gang validation decision 

via an administrative grievance. On March 13, 2011, Plaintiff again challenged his gang 

validation decision via an administrative grievance. On May 30, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a 

staff complaint against several IGIU members, alleging the fabrication of gang evidence to 

secure Plaintiff’s validation as a gang member and indeterminate Security Housing Unit 

placement. On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff organized multiple prisoners who had similarly 

experienced and challenged adverse acts stemming from IGIU members’ misconduct. 

Plaintiff’s organizing efforts were recorded in a roster that contained the names and signatures 

of the effected prisoners, as well as the log numbers of the grievances they filed against IGIU 

members.

On June 13, 2011, Plaintiff forwarded a letter to Centinela warden Domingo Uribe Jr., 

seeking to have his staff complaint against Centinela IGIU members investigated. On July 12, 

2011, Mr. Uribe replied. Mr. Uribe agreed to review the alleged misconduct. On August 14, 

2011, Plaintiff submitted a third administrative grievance challenging his gang validation.

On September 1, 2011, classification staff representative Luu formally endorsed Plaintiff’s 

transfer to Pelican Bay State Prison to serve an indeterminate Secure Housing Unit (“SHU”) 

term due to Plaintiff’s gang validation. On October 26, 2011 (and during the pendency of the 

grievances challenging both Plaintiff’s gang validation and the misconduct associated with the 

fabrication of gang evidence), Plaintiff was ordered onto a CDCR transportation bus for 

transfer. Because of the distance between Centinela and Pelican Bay State Prison, the transfer 

could not be completed in a day. Accordingly, there was a “‘layover’” at California 

Correctional Institution Tehachapi (Plaintiff arrived at some point in the afternoon). 

 

1

Plaintiff refers to this unit as the “Elite Institutional Gang Investigative (‘I.G.I.’) Unit/Squad.” 

(ECF No. 23, p. 2).

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 11
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

Immediately after exiting the bus Plaintiff was greeted by Tehachapi IGIU member defendant 

Adame, and was escorted to the receiving and release building of the institution. “Upon 

information and belief defendant Adame made the following comment to another prisoner on 

the bus: ‘whats [sic] up with your homeboy, he does not want to cooperate. But, we’re going to 

break him, I’m going to make sure I break him.’” (ECF No. 23, pgs. 9-10). 

While defendant Adame was escorting Plaintiff, he “began to incessantly harass 

[Plaintiff] with stacoato [sic] remarks about; 1.) [Plaintiff’s] pursuing grievances and 

complaints against [Centinela IGIU] members and his gang validation; 2.) Organizing prisoners 

to challenge IGI[U] squad members; 3.) [Plaintiff’s] involvement in ‘gang activity’; and 4.) 

The sort of hardship [Plaintiff] would experience if he did not cooperate by giving up the 

contraband he purportedly had and provide information on other prisoners to enable him 

(Adame) to validate and indeterminately segregate them.” (Id. at p. 5).

Upon entering the receiving and release building Plaintiff was placed in a secluded 

single man metal holding cage, ordered to strip naked, and subjected to an unclothed body 

search. Plaintiff asked defendant Adame several questions, to which defendant Adame replied 

“‘just answer our questions give up what you have and provide information that can be used to 

validate other inmates.’” (Id. at p. 6). Plaintiff responded by saying that he had no clue what 

defendant Adame was talking about, that Plaintiff did not involve himself with gang activity, 

that he did not have any disciplinary record to corroborate any claims of gang activity, and that 

he did not even have any tattoos.

At this point “defendant Adame became visibly upset and bluntly threatened that if 

[Plaintiff] did not become a confidential informant [Plaintiff] would not be released from 

contraband watch for a long time. Defendant Adame also stated ‘so, I also know you like to 

file grievances against squad members. Well unlike where you’re coming from, don’t concern 

yourself with submitting them now because here we use the forms as toilet tissue, I’m sure you 

see how that would just be a waste of time for you.’” (Id.). 

After the strip search was concluded with negative contraband results, defendant Adame 

informed Plaintiff that he was being placed on contraband surveillance watch. At this point 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 11
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

“[d]efendant Adame placed [Plaintiff] in waist chains and handcuffs. Then, Adame applied 

black mittons [sic] on [Plaintiff] which even at a distance, emitted a foul stench that made both 

their filthy and unsanitized [sic] condition readily obvious. This was followed by placing 

plexi-cuffs (or zip-ties) on top of the mittons [sic], then Adame wrapped several layers of two 

(2) and one half (1/2) inch wide scotch tape around [Plaintiff’s] wrists to secure both the 

mittons [sic] and zip-ties. Next, Adame locked chained metal-shackles around [Plaintiff’s] 

ankles, tucked [Plaintiff’s] jumpsuit pant legs into his socks and similarly wrapped several 

layers of scotch tape around the metal-cuffs these restraints remained on [Plaintiff] from 

October 26 until November 11.” (Id.).

For the next 16 days Plaintiff was forced to endure the restraints described above 

without adequate reprieve, despite multiple negative results for contraband. The defendants did 

not get the requisite approvals to keep Plaintiff on contraband surveillance watch for as long as 

they did. Additionally, neither of the holding cells Plaintiff was kept in were configured for 

prolonged housing. The first holding cell was located in the receiving and release building. 

“At approximately 8 by 15 feet, the cells only furniture was a small wooden bench; and while a 

sunk/toilet combination facility was present, [Plaintiff] had no accessability [sic] to it due to it 

being heavily covered and taped over.” (Id. at p. 7). The second cell was in the visiting 

building. “At approximately 8 by 20 feet, the cell had no toilet or sink and only a small 

wooden bench.” (Id.). This cell was only four feet from a door leading to the outside, and 

there was a five to six inch gap at the bottom of the door. During the time Plaintiff was held in 

this cell, “the temperature outside was approximately 40 degrees below (snow felled [sic] and 

stayed on the ground outside), [Plaintiff] was never given winter clothing, and was left to 

huddle in a freezing cell while the officers guarding were heavily clothed.” (Id. at p. 9).

During this 16 day ordeal Plaintiff “was not allowed to shower, save, brush his teeth[,] 

exercise or lay down to sleep nor rest.” (Id. at p. 7). “Being deprived of basic hygienic and 

health practices [Plaintiff] could not prevent developing a sharply repelling odor and a semicatatonic state of mind from lack of proper rest. Further having his hands in the damp dark 

space within the unsanitized [sic] mittons [sic] for a prolong [sic] period of time, [Plaintiff] 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 11
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

contracted a [sic] aggressive skin fungal infection on both of his hands.... [Plaintiff] also 

contracted a similarly aggressive toenail fungal infection....” (Id.). Additionally, “prolong 

[sic] application of the physical restraints generated constant chafing. And the incessant 

chafing resulted in the metal and plastic restraints burrowing through [Plaintiff’s] skin around 

his wrist and ankles leaving permanent scaring there.” (Id.). Further, at no time was Plaintiff 

provided with a blanket or a mattress, and a bright light was kept on 24 hours a day. (Id. at p. 

14). 

“On October 28, 2011, [Plaintiff] volunteered to provide a bowel movement. [Plaintiff] 

was brought to the middle of the [receiving and release] terminal where a portable latrine was 

placed in plain view of other prisoners and guards (male and female), and was required to 

defecate there. When asked why he was being exhibited in such a fashion, the officer replied: 

‘your buddy (meaning Adame) is what he requested.’ The bowel movement rendered a 

negative result for contraband.” (Id. at p. 10). Later that day, defendant Lundy stopped by the 

receiving and release building. After Plaintiff ascertained his rank, Plaintiff asked him the 

basis of the decision to keep him on contraband surveillance watch, especially in light of 

providing a bowel movement that was negative for contraband earlier in the day. Plaintiff also 

asked for a blanket and a mattress. “Scoffing, defendant Lundy stated ‘just cooperate and give 

up what you have. Make everyone’s life easier.’” (Id. at p. 10).

On October 31, 2011, defendant Tyree came into the receiving and release building. 

Plaintiff asked defendant Tyree why he was not being allowed to shower or brush his teeth, and 

why he was not being provided with a mattress or blanket. Defendant Tyree replied “‘as soon 

as you give up what you have up your ass, and the more you are able to help us [(i.e., provide 

information)] the quicker I can make this nightmare end.’” (Id.) (brackets in original). “Tyree 

and Adame also suggested that [Plaintiff] should worry about being placed on single cell status 

(a threat intended to create the perception that he had become an informant) in order to prompt 

[Plaintiff’s] cooperation. (Id. at pgs. 10-11). For the remainder of the watch, both defendant 

Adame and defendant Tyree kept harassing Plaintiff, and when Plaintiff “asked if he could at 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 6 of 11
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

least wash his right hand (the only extremity released to feed and relieve himself) Tyree simply 

replied ‘not right now.’” (Id. at p. 11). 

On that same day, defendant Lundy stopped by, and Plaintiff “once again asked for an 

opportunity to washup [sic], a mattress/blanket and the reasoning for his [contraband 

surveillance watch] placement. [Plaintiff] also informed defendant Lundy that he was not 

feeling well, and asked to see medical staff. Defendant Lundy simply did not acknowledge 

[Plaintiff] in any manner.” (Id.).

On November 2, 2011, Plaintiff informed prison officials that he believed he was cut 

around his ankles and wrists. Plaintiff was completely ignored.

On November 3, 2011, Plaintiff provided a third bowel movement that was negative for 

contraband. Later that day, defendant Adame and two other IGIU officers showed up. 

Defendant Adame, who was “‘visibly upset, blurted ‘if you think you got away, think again.’ 

[Plaintiff] was ordered [out] of the cell and patted down. When asked if he can loosen the 

restraints to allow some stretching and check for cuts, Adame scoffed and said ‘you better just 

brace yourself for what’s next.’” (Id.). 

Plaintiff was then moved to a holding cell in the visiting building. “When [Plaintiff] 

asked Adame for a blanket and mattress, defendant Adame – along with the other [IGIU] 

officers – simply laughed and said ‘don’t you wish you had just cooperated?’” (Id. at p. 12). 

Plaintiff also told defendant Adame that he did not feel well because he was not getting proper 

sleep and because he could not eat with the foul odor of his hand, and asked to see medical 

staff. “Defendant Adame replied by stating ‘this ain’t Burger King, you can’t have it your 

way,’ and followed that with ‘you should’ve cooperated, after tonight I‘m sure you’d wish you 

would’ve.’” (Id.).

“From November 3, 2011, to November 5, 2011 [Plaintiff] remained in the freezing, 

dirty, and furnitureless visiting building holding cell. [Plaintiff] was provided no blanket, 

mattress[,] adequate inclement clothing nor opportunities to shower, shave or even wash his 

hands. Further, his request to see medical staff simply were ignored.” (Id.). 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 7 of 11
8

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

On November 5, 2011, Office Tingly was assigned to guard Plaintiff. He was shocked 

at the freezing temperature where Plaintiff was being held, and had Plaintiff moved back to the 

holding cell in the receiving and release building.

On November 7, 2011, Plaintiff again asked defendants Lundy and Tyree for the chance 

to wash up, and for a mattress or blanket. “Defendants [sic] Lundy replied by saying ‘you can 

end this now, give up what you have and cooperate.’ Then looking at Tyree and smirking, 

asked ‘or he can just file a 602 and complain like he usually does right?’ Replying, Tyree said 

‘he has that option, not sure how far he’ll get with that hand tied up though.’” (Id. at pgs. 12-

13). 

On or about November 9, 2011, Plaintiff was taken to attend an Institution 

Classification Committee Hearing comprised of high ranking administrative officials, including 

the Warden. At the hearing, “Plaintiff addressed defendant Lundy by asking: 1.) Why was 

[Plaintiff] placed on [contraband surveillance watch]; 2.) After multiple bowel movements and 

x-ray examinations, why was [Plaintiff] still being kept on [contraband surveillance watch]; 

and, 3.) After once more expressing not feeling well and having cuts from the restraints, why 

was he not allowed to see medical personal? Defendant Lundy... replied with ‘just give one 

more negative bowel movement and x-ray result, and all will end.’ Lundy’s response 

completely ignored the hygiene and medical issues.” (Id. at p. 13). 

On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff provided yet another bowel movement that was 

negative for contraband. However, Plaintiff was still not released from contraband surveillance 

watch. On or about November 11, 2011, Plaintiff had another bowel movement that was 

negative for contraband, and was finally released. “When the restraints were removed, 

[Plaintiff] had numerous abrasions on all of his extremities. These contained both caked on and 

fresh blood.” (Id. at 14).

“Plaintiff submitted a grievance to the prison appeals coordinator requesting that 

adverse actions be taken against the defendants in this case for subjecting Plaintiff to cruel and 

unusual punishment.” (Id. at 15). The appeals coordinator failed to respond, even after several 

requests from Plaintiff to know the status of his appeal.

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 8 of 11
9

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

Plaintiff asserts the following claims: 1) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment; 2) inadequate health care in violation of the Eighth Amendment;22)

violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the courts; and 4) retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment.

III. ACCESS TO THE COURTS

A. Legal Standards

Under the First Amendment, prisoners have the right to access the courts and the right 

to petition the government for a redress of grievances. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 

(1977). To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must establish 

that he has suffered an “actual injury” as a result of a prison official's misconduct. Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351–52 (1996). An “actual injury” exists where a prisoner has been 

“hindered [in his] efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. at 351; see also Silva v. Vittorio, 658 

F.3d 1090, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that access-to-courts claim requires an actual 

injury to court access), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 

1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015).

B. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for violation of Plaintiff’s 

right to access the courts. Plaintiff alleges that the prison has mishandled or ignored his 

grievance. However, at this point, Plaintiff has not been hindered in his efforts to pursue his 

legal claim based on the prison’s lack of a response to his grievance. While these allegations 

will be relevant in determining the issue of whether Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative 

remedies and can go forward with this lawsuit on its merits, the prison’s failure to address the 

grievance properly itself does not raise a constitutional claim. 

\\\

\\\

 

2 While Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint does not directly state a claim for inadequate 

health care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, he alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for inadequate health 

care.

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 9 of 11
10

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

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court has found in an order that will be entered concurrently with this order that 

Plaintiff has stated a claim against defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for violations of the 

Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement, against defendants Adame and Lundy 

for inadequate health care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants 

Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. All three 

defendants are being sued in their official and individual capacities. 

However, Plaintiff has failed to state any other claims, or claims against any other 

defendants. The Court thus recommends dismissal of all other claims and defendants besides 

those listed in the paragraph above.

This case was filed in August of 2013, and Plaintiff is now on his Third Amended 

Complaint. Plaintiff has already been given leave to file two amended complaints with 

instructions regarding the law to inform that amended complaint (Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint was never screened). Accordingly, the Court does not believe further amendment 

would cure the deficiencies in the remaining claims and defendants.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all other claims and 

defendants be dismissed from this action with prejudice.

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

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 10 of 11
11

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

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 11 of 11