Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06339/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06339-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 6339 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

M. GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections at Salinas Valley State Prison, brings this

civil rights action against correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at

Pleasant Valley State Prison. The events that give rise to this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff

was housed at Pleasant Valley. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants:

Correctional Officer (C/O) M. Gonzales; Supervising Cook M. DeLuna; Chief Medical Officer

Bendon. 

This lawsuit stems from an incident that occurred on July 16, 2003. Plaintiff alleges that

he was working in a locked dining hall from 3:30 to 5:30 pm that day. Defendant Gonzales was

Case 1:03-cv-06339-WMW Document 31 Filed 12/28/06 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

2

the correctional officer assigned to that facility. Defendant DeLuna was the supervising cook

assigned to that facility. Plaintiff was attacked by another inmate at approximately 4:00 pm. 

Plaintiff advised Defendant DeLuna that he “slipped and fell.” Plaintiff alleges that he did not

tell DeLuna of the assault, for fear of retaliation. DeLuna did not allow Plaintiff to leave the

work area, and locked Plaintiff in the work area. Plaintiff was attacked again by two inmates. 

Plaintiff suffered a large wound over his right eye. Plaintiff was taken to the medica clinic,

where he received stitches over his right eye. 

The next day, July 17 , Plaintiff advised C/O Clow that he had been assaulted by th

two inmates, and that he had not told anybody of the incident due to fear of retaliation. On July

20 , Plaintiff was placed on confined to quarters (CTQ) status by C/O Clow. Plaintiff alleges th

that he was not let out of his cell for ten days. Plaintiff also alleges that he never received any

medical follow up, and he had to remove his sutures himself. 

Plaintiff alleges that he filed an inmate grievance. It is unclear from the

allegations of the first amended complaint, but it appears that Plaintiff filed the grievances on Jly

31, 2003, and that they were returned to Plaintiff on August 4, 2003, “for further processing.”

On August 18, 2003, Plaintiff received a response to his inmate grievance, indicating that

“Alleged assault took place on 7-16-03. You did not send to appeals until 8-14-03. You hid this

information for a month and now are trying to file an appeal. You missed time and should have

told the truth a month ago. You can ask your Captain to investigate, but you cannot appeal it.”

Plaintiff refers to Exhibit A. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit A includes a copy of a CDC Form 695, a Request for

Reasonable Modification or Accomodation. This form has the response quoted above, indicating

that the form was filed a month after the event. Page 2 of Exhibit A is a CDC Fomr 602, filed by

Plaintiff on August 4, 2003, referring to the incident on July 16, 2003. Plaintiff does not include

the response to this grievance. 

Case 1:03-cv-06339-WMW Document 31 Filed 12/28/06 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

3

Eighth Amendment Claim

The Eighth Amendment provides that “cruel and unusual punishment [shall not

be] inflicted.” “An Eighth Amendment claim that a prison official has deprived inmates of

humane conditions of confinement must meet two requirements, one objective and the other

subjective.” Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9 Cir.) cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1065, (1995). th

The objective requirement is met if the prison official’s acts or omissions

deprived a prisoner of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Id. (quoting Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). To satisfy the subjective prong, a plaintiff must show

more than mere inadvertence or negligence. Neither negligence nor gross negligence will

constitute deliberate indifference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833, & n. 4; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 106 (1976). The Farmer court concluded that “subjective recklesness as used in the criminal

law is a familiar and workable standard that is consistent with the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause” and adopted this as the test for deliberate indifference under the Eighth

Amendment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839-40.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts indicating that any of the named

defendants knew of the risk to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. 

Assuming the facts of the complaint as true, Plaintiff was attacked by another inmate, but failed

to report it until the next day. Plaintiff does allege that Defendant Gonzels “pronounded that he

was an “ENE” (i.e. Northern California Mexican gang member) and created a dangerous

environment by his gang affiliation statements directed at culinary workers.” Plaintiff does not,

however, allege that defendants were aware of any particular danger to Plaintiff on July 16,

2003. There are no facts alleged indicating that Plaintiff was aware of any particular harm that

day or that he made any of the defendants aware of the harm to Plaintiff. This claim must

therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be provided an opportunity to file an amended

complaint that cures this defect.

Case 1:03-cv-06339-WMW Document 31 Filed 12/28/06 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

4

Exhaustion

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution. . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 26, 1996, The Prison Litigation Reform Act was enacted. Section 7 of

the Act amended 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) to read as follows:

(a) APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. No action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1979 of the Revised

Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) or any other Federal law, by a

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 

On May 29, 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided Booth v.

Churner,532 U.S. 731 (2001). The Supreme Court, in addressing the question of whether a

prisoner need exhaust available remedies when monetary damages are unavailable, held that

“Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless of the relief offered through

administrative procedures.” Id. at 1821. In order to bring his claim in federal court, plaintiff

must completely exhaust his available administrative remedies.

In California, there are four levels of review - informal level, first formal level,

second formal level, and third formal level. The third formal level constitutes the Director’s

decision on appeal. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.5(e)(2). Here, Plaintiff alleges that he filed

his grievance at the informal level, at the earliest, on July 31, 2003 (though Exhibit A indicates

that it was filed on August 4, 2003, Plaintiff dates it July 31). The first amended complaint

indicates that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

Case 1:03-cv-06339-WMW Document 31 Filed 12/28/06 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

5

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:03-cv-06339-WMW Document 31 Filed 12/28/06 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

6

1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint.”

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06339-WMW Document 31 Filed 12/28/06 Page 6 of 6