Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754-0/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

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00754-SKO PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF EITHER TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR TO

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO

PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO

BE COGNIZABLE

(Doc. 1)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and is incarcerated at the

California State Prison in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff is suing under Section 1983 for the

violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff names Bass

(correctional officer), Miranda (correctional officer), and Dava (licensed vocational nurse) as 1

defendants (“Defendants”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint

states some cognizable claims. The Court will order Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint

which cures the deficiencies in his claims or to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on

the claims found to be cognizable in this order.

///

Dava is not listed as a defendant under the “Parties” section of Plaintiff’s complaint, but Plaintiff requests

1

relief against him/her in the “Relief” section of his complaint.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 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

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 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).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under 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)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual

allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. 

Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges he was injured and pepper sprayed on March 21, 2010 by Defendants Bass

and Miranda. Plaintiff was escorted to his cell and Bass began to remove Plaintiff’s restraints. 

While removing Plaintiff’s wrist restraints, Bass violently pulled the handcuffs backwards causing

Plaintiff’s hand and arm to be pulled through the food port. Bass stated, “Don’t fucking ever talk

to my lieutenant like that you fucking nigger.” (Compl. 8, ECF No. 1.) Bass then ordered Miranda

to pepper spray Plaintiff. However, “Miranda sprayed defendant Bass, then turned on Plaintiff.” 

(Compl. 8, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff claims that his mid-section and right hand were sprayed. The two

2

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 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

officers then ran away laughing. Plaintiff claims that the handcuff key broke and a sergeant had to

remove the handcuffs using bolt cutters.

On March 26, 2010, Plaintiff saw Defendant Dava for treatment for the injuries that he

received from Bass and Miranda. Plaintiff does not identify what injuries he sustained, or what

treatment he needed. However, Plaintiff alleges that the treatment he received was inadequate and

amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff claims he submitted other requests for medical

treatment but was either ignored or received deficient treatment.

III. Discussion

A. Eighth Amendment Claims

Plaintiff claims his rights under the Eighth Amendment were violated by Defendants. The

Eighth Amendment prohibitsthe imposition of cruel and unusual punishments and “embodies ‘broad

and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 579 (8th Cir. 1968)). A prison

official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the objective

requirement that the deprivation is “sufficiently serious,” and (2) the subjective requirement that the

prison official has a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

(1994) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)).

The objective requirement that the deprivation be “sufficiently serious” is met where the

prison official’s act or omission results in the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities.” Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The subjective

“sufficiently culpable state of mind” requirement is met when a prison official acts with “deliberate

indifference” to inmate health or safety. Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-303). A prison official

acts with deliberate indifferencewhen he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate

health or safety.” Id. at 837. “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference

could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”

Id.

///

///

3

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/23/10 Page 3 of 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

1. Excessive Force Claims

Plaintiff claims Defendants Bass and Miranda violated the Eighth Amendment by using

excessive force on Plaintiff. Where prison officials are accused of using excessive physical force,

the issue is “‘whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (quoting

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-321 (1986)). Factors relevant to the analysis are the need for

the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used and

the extent of the injury inflicted. Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321. Other factors to be considered are the

extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible

officials on the basis of the facts known to them, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a

forceful response. Id. The infliction of pain in the course of a prison security measure “does not

amount to cruel and unusual punishment simply because it may appear in retrospect that the degree

of force authorized or applied was unreasonable, and hence unnecessary.” Id. at 319. Prison

administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies

and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to

maintain institutional security.” Id. at 321-322 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970)).

Plaintiff claims Defendant Bass yanked Plaintiff’s handcuffs and caused injury by forcing

Plaintiff’s hands and arms through the food port in his cell. Plaintiff also alleges he was pepper

sprayed by Miranda upon orders by Bass. Plaintiff alleges the use of force was excessive because

Bass was merely upset about something Plaintiff said to Bass’ lieutenant. Plaintiff states a

cognizable claim against Defendants Bass and Miranda for the use of excessive force in violation

of the Eighth Amendment.

2. Medical Treatment Claims

Plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were also violated because of the deficient

medical treatment he received. “[D]eliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury

states a cause of action under § 1983.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. To state an Eighth Amendment

claim based on deficient medical treatment, a plaintiff must show: (1) a serious medical need; and

(2) a deliberately indifferent response by the defendant. Conn v. City of Reno, 572 F.3d 1047, 1055

4

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/23/10 Page 4 of 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

(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). A serious medical

need is shown by alleging that the failure to treat the plaintiff’s condition could result in further

significant injury, or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Id. A deliberately indifferent

response by the defendant is shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or

possible medical need and harm caused by the indifference. Id. To constitute deliberate

indifference, there must be an objective risk of harm and the defendant must have subjective

awareness of that harm. Id. 

Plaintiff does not identify what injuries he sustained or what medical treatment he needed. 

Nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint suggests Plaintiff had a serious need for medical treatment, or that

any defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s serious need for medical treatment. Plaintiff’s vague and

conclusory allegations are not sufficient to state a claim under Section 1983.

B. Fourteenth Amendment Claims

1. Due Process Claims

Plaintiff claims Defendants Bass and Miranda violated Plaintiff’s due process rights byusing

excessive force against Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot maintain a duplicative claim under the Fourteenth

Amendment for the use of excessive force because the Eighth Amendment provides an explicit

textual source of constitutional protection for Plaintiff’s right to be free from the use of excessive

force. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986) (“the Eighth Amendment . . . serves as the

primary source of substantive protection to convicted prisoners in cases . . . where the deliberate use

of force is challenged as excessive and unjustified” and “in these circumstances the Due Process

Clause affords respondent no greater protection than does the Cruel and Unusual Punishments

Clause.”) Plaintiff’s claims will proceed under the Eighth Amendment and not under the Fourteenth

Amendment.

2. Equal Protection Claims

Plaintiff claims he was denied equal protection because Defendant Bass used racial epithets

during the use of force incident. Mere verbal harassment or abuse, including the use of racial

epithets, does not violate the Constitution and, thus, does not give rise to a claim for relief under

///

5

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/23/10 Page 5 of 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

Section 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Plaintiff

fails to state any equal protection claims based on Defendant Bass’ use of racial epithets.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants Bass and Miranda for use

of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims

against any other defendants. 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 two (2) summonses and two (2) 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.

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

Plaintiff must identify how each individual defendant caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional or other federal rights: “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). 

With respect to exhibits, while they are permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P.

10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In other

words, it is not necessary at this stage to submit evidence to prove the allegations in Plaintiff’s

complaint because at this stage Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true.

Although Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true and “the pleading standard

Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’” “a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

6

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/23/10 Page 6 of 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

544, 555 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

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). The amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior

or superceded pleading.” Local Rule 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 London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth,

114 F.3d at 1474. In other words, even the claims that were properly stated in the original complaint

must be completely stated again in the amended complaint.

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 Bass and Miranda

for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 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: November 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/23/10 Page 7 of 7