Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01098/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01098-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

ALFRED KIDD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

V. BIGGS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 06-1098 OWW DLB P 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS

TO PROCEED ONLY ON

COGNIZABLE EXCESSIVE FORCE

CLAIMS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint filed August 21, 2006. 

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

Case 1:06-cv-01098-BLW -MHW Document 10 Filed 05/07/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

In the instant case, plaintiff brings action against V. Biggs, W. Oxborrow, E. Clark, Dhillon,

J. Carr, S. Lantz, Montero, Nopoli, Perez, Madrid, T. Amador and R. Cazares. Plaintiff alleges that

on August 26, 2004 he asked defendant Cazares to be moved from his cell for his personal safety. 

When he refused, plaintiff requested to be placed in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff alleges

that defendant Sergeant Biggs told him to go back to his cell. Fearing for his personal safety,

plaintiff refused and was then dragged to his cell by defendant Oxborrow. He was then pushed

causing him to fall. While on the ground, plaintiff again stated that it was unsafe for him to go back

to the cell. Plaintiff was then picked up by defendants Biggs, Ozborrow and Dhillon who carried

him to the day room and dropped him on the floor. In pain, plaintiff refused to get up and walk to

his cell. Defendant Biggs then instructed officers to pick him up and toss him in his cell. After

being thrown in his cell, plaintiff was disoriented and attempted to stand up. One of the defendants

then instructed him to get on his knees. When plaintiff asked why, defendant Biggs grabbed

plaintiff’s face and slammed it into the wall. Another defendant began kicking him. Plaintiff was

then placed in Administrative segregation. Later, plaintiff was taken to the MTA office where he

was examined by MTA Carr and RN Williams. Defendant Perez was also present. 

Around 8:00 p.m., Plaintiff was taken to the Correctional Treatment Center. Plaintiff was

left in handcuffs. Around 9:00 p.m., plaintiff asked to speak to a Lieutenant. Plaintiff made the

same request at 10:00 p.m. In response, defendant Madrid instructed plaintiff to place his hands in

the tray slot. When plaintiff did so, defendant Madrid squeezed plaintiff’s handcuffs tighter, causing

plaintiff more pain. Still in handcuffs at 12:30 a.m., plaintiff made another request to speak with a

Lieutenant. When defendants Perez and Madrid denied his request, plaintiff flooded his cell. 

Sergeant Cruz and Officer Rose then came to plaintiff’s cell and plaintiff informed them that

he had been assualted by staff and placed in handcuffs for hours. Sergeant Cruz then left the cell,

leaving plaintiff in handcuffs. After Officer Amador refused to remove plaintiff’s handcuffs,

Case 1:06-cv-01098-BLW -MHW Document 10 Filed 05/07/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

plaintiff kicked out the window. Sergeant Cruz and Lieutenant Hurly responded to plaintiff’s cell

and took photos and video of plaintiff’s injuries.

B. Discussion

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . .

contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates

contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Id. at

9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force

standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However, not “every

malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Id. at 9. “The Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional

recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort

repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks and citations

omitted). 

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of

the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to

cause harm.” Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may

also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and

the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts

made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, but does

not end it.” Id. 

Under federal notice pleading standards, plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim

against defendants Biggs, Oxborrow, Dhillon and Madrid. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v.

Case 1:06-cv-01098-BLW -MHW Document 10 Filed 05/07/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.

2004); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307

F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). 

However, plaintiff’s allegations the remaining defendants fall short of stating a claim. To

state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of

state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. 

Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). An officer can be held liable

for failing to intercede only if he had a “realistic opportunity” to intercede. Cunningham v. Gates,

229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would support a claim

against the remaining defendants. 

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against defendants Biggs, Oxborrow, Dhillon and Madrid

for violating the Eighth Amendment through use of excessive physical force. However, plaintiff’s

complaint does not state any other claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The

court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if plaintiff wishes to

do so.

If plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed against

defendants Biggs, Oxborrow, Dhillon and Madrid only, plaintiff may so notify the court in writing. 

The court will then issue Findings and Recommendations recommending that the remaining claims

and defendants be dismissed from this action, and will forward plaintiff four summons and four

USM-285 forms to fill out and return to the court. Upon receipt of these documents, the court will

direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on defendants Biggs, Oxborrow,

Dhillon and Madrid.

In the event that plaintiff does wish to amend his complaint, plaintiff is advised Local Rule

15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. 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

Case 1:06-cv-01098-BLW -MHW Document 10 Filed 05/07/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

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.

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). 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). 

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 Biggs, Oxborrow, Dhillon and

Madrid on his excessive force claim; and

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

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01098-BLW -MHW Document 10 Filed 05/07/07 Page 5 of 5