Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01647/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01647-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORDELL HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01647-DAD-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a Kings County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed 

October 29, 2015.

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 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

Case 1:15-cv-01647-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

2

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[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 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, currently housed at the Kings County Jail, brings this action against the Kings 

County Jail “Sheriffs who are employed by Hanford Kings County Jail.” Plaintiff alleges 

generally that the Kings County Jail lacks proper staffing and housing for inmates with mental 

health disorders. Plaintiff alleges that there is nobody to talk to when he is “having suicidal or 

homicidal ideations. They place inmates in a „rubber room‟ with no toilet paper or no toilet. 

They refuse to give showers or let one take care of their hygiene.” (Comp. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff 

alleges that he is only treated with medication, and only has access to a psychiatrist via a 

monitor. Plaintiff also alleges that he has been assaulted twice.

Case 1:15-cv-01647-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

3

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Individual Liability

The Civil Rights Act under which this action proceeds provides for liability for state 

actors that cause “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution.” 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection 

or link between the actions of the defendants, and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered 

by the plaintiff. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 

U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person „subjects‟ another to the 

deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an 

affirmative act, participates in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Plaintiff does not allege specific conduct by any identifiable individuals. Plaintiff names 

as Defendants Kings County and “Sheriffs who are employed by Hanford Kings County Jail.” In 

order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, 

describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant 

acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what 

happened. Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular 

right described by Plaintiff.

As to Defendant Kings County Jail, Plaintiff is advised that a local government unit may 

not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under respondeat superior theory of liability. 

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 

588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Rather, a local government 

unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; 

Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185.

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability 

Case 1:15-cv-01647-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

4

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . .was the „moving force‟ 

behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 

667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Alternatively, 

and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local government 

unit‟s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1186. 

Under this route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality‟s deliberate 

indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit the 

constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the municipality 

was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional 

violation.” Id. Plaintiff does not refer to any specific policy of the Kings County Jail.

B. Conditions of Confinement

Plaintiff does not indicate whether he is a pretrial detainee or serving a sentence of 

confinement. The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment only 

protects convicted prisoners. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); Graham v. Connor, 490 

U.S. 386, 395 (1989). While pretrial detainees‟ rights are protected under the Due Process 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the standard for claims brought under the Eighth 

Amendment has long been used to analyze pretrial detainees‟ conditions of confinement claims. 

Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1101, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010); Clouthier v. County 

of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1242 (9th Cir. 2010); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th 

Cir. 1998). 

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison 

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner‟s claim does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment 

violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the „minimal civilized measure 

of life‟s necessities,‟” and (2) “the prison official „acted with deliberate indifference in doing 

so.‟” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 

F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002)(citation omitted)). In order to find a prison official liable under the 

Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement within a prison, the official 

Case 1:15-cv-01647-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

5

must know “that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by 

failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th 

Cir. 2000), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in prison represents a constitutional 

violation. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045. To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must 

show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health 

or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847.

The Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. In order to state a claim for relief, 

Plaintiff must identify individual defendants, by name, and allege facts indicating that each of the 

individual defendants knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s health or safety. 

Plaintiff has failed to do so here. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. 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).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes 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), 

Case 1:15-cv-01647-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

6

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All 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 to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed October 29, 2015, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

an amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01647-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 6