Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAQUES FEARANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00615 LJO YNP GSA (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO BE

COGNIZABLE

(Doc. 1)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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

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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

1

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/12/10 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

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). 

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

n.9 (1989). “[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. Plaintiff’s Claims

A. Summary of Complaint

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

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP Lancaster, brings this civil rights action against correctional officials

employed bythe CDCR at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi CCI). The events that

give rise to this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was housed at CCI. Plaintiff names as defendants

the following individuals: L. Schulteis, Warden at CCI; Lieutenant S. Hopkins; Sergeant J. Busby;

Correctional Officer (C/O) T. C. Davis; C/O Duffy; and Sgt. John Doe.

Plaintiff alleges on August 11, 2005, he was removed from his cell in restraints and placed

in a holding cage. Plaintiff alleges that, while restrained and locked in the holding cage, “all

officers” subjected him to verbal abuse. Plaintiff alleges that Lt. Hopkins “reached into the cage

and assaulted me aggressively.” Plaintiff alleges that “at that time they put on gas mask and agreed

to pepper spray me with restraints on still and locked up in a holding tank in a dining hall, without

posing any threat to staff or anyone. J. Busby sprayed a whole can of O.C. pepperspray emptied all

of its contents.” Plaintiff alleges that after he was decontaminated, he was placed in a management

cell for three days. Plaintiff was subject to constant air conditioning, no bunk, no mattress or

blanket and no desk.

The court finds that the complaint states a claim for relief on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive

force as to Defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis and Duffy.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/12/10 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

As to Plaintiff’s claim regarding his placement in the management cell, “It is undisputed that

the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which [the prisoner] is confined

are subject to scrutinyunder the Eighth Amendment.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). 

Prison officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and

personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Ninth

Circuit has held that temporary placement of prisoners in “safety cells” - even where the cells are

small, dark and scary - does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Anderson v. County of Kern, 45

F.3d 1310, 1313-15 (9 Cir. 1995). The facts alleged indicate that Plaintiff was temporarily housed th

in the management cell for three days. Such a temporary deprivation does not, of itself, constitute

deliberate indifference. Further, the mere allegations of inadequate clothing and exposure to cold

are insufficient, as discomfort alone is not sufficient to violate the Eighth Amendment. Johnson v.

Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9 Cir. 2006); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9 Cir. 1996); Walker th th

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421 (9 Cir. 1994). Given the time of year - summer - and the climate th

the prison is located in, there is no basis for inferring that Plaintiff was exposed to temperatures so

extreme that without additional clothing, the conditions constituted deliberate indifference.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states claims undertheEighthAmendment against Defendants Hopkins,

Busby, Davis and Duffy for use of excessive physical force. However, the complaint does not state

any other cognizable claims. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. 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).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding only

on the claims identified in this order as cognizable, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing, and

the Court will issue a recommendation for dismissal of the other claims and defendants, and will 

forward Plaintiff nine summonses and nine USM-285 forms for completion and return. Upon receipt

of the forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process.

3

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/12/10 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

If Plaintiff opts to amend, his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but

must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or

other federal rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. With respect to defendants like Warden Schulteis,

“there is no pure respondeat superior liability under § 1983, [and] a supervisor [may only be held]

liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates ‘if the supervisor participated in or directed

the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.’” Id. at 988 (quoting

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual

allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes 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 itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll 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 Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in

this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendants Olmos, Perez,

Sanchez, Paz, and Munoz for use of excessive physical force, against

Defendant Munoz forthe unconstitutional conditions of confinement in cell///

232, and against Defendants Marquez, Jimenez, Haines, and Talle for denial

of medical care; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

4

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/12/10 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

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 5