Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03706-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROL JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

VARGAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03706-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed this 

pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis in a separate order. The complaint is now before the Court for review pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges the following:

Plaintiff was assigned to a job as a janitor/porter at SVSP. His supervisor was defendant 

correctional officer Vargas. For several months prior to the incident at issue in the present action, 

Vargas had been falsifying plaintiff’s time card such that plaintiff was being given credit for work 

that Vargas was not permitting plaintiff to actually perform. Specifically, Vargas would order 

working inmates out of the building they were assigned to report to for work duty and would send 

them to the exercise yard so that Vargas did not have to supervise them. After plaintiff 

complained about this practice, Vargas retaliated by setting up an altercation between plaintiff and 

another inmate. Vargas conspired with defendant correctional officers M. Garcia and M. Alverez 

to stage the altercation.

Case 4:17-cv-03706-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/06/17 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

On April 2, 2017, plaintiff showed up to work, and Vargas once again forced plaintiff to 

leave his prison-assigned janitor/porter job and go to the exercise yard. Plaintiff sat down in the 

exercise yard and began playing cards with some other inmates. While plaintiff was playing 

cards, another inmate, inmate Carr, approached plaintiff from behind without warning and 

proceeded to punch plaintiff several times in the back of plaintiff’s head and on the side of his 

face. Carr was known to be a violent gang member. The punches broke plaintiff’s jaw and left 

plaintiff unconscious. Garcia came over and handcuffed plaintiff and place him in a holding cage. 

Garcia, Vargas, and Alverez also handcuffed Carr and placed him in a holding cage next to 

plaintiff’s holding cage. Plaintiff requested medical treatment, but he was merely escorted back to 

his cell. Thirty minutes later, Alverez approached plaintiff’s cell and forced plaintiff to sign a 

document under threat of subjecting plaintiff to further punishment. Plaintiff was still not given 

medical attention despite his obvious injuries.

The following day, April 3, 2017, plaintiff was released from his cell, and he reported to 

work so as not to receive a rules violation report. Vargas once again refused to permit plaintiff to 

stay inside and sent plaintiff to the exercise yard. Plaintiff proceeded to the yard and waited to be 

called to the medical clinic for treatment. While plaintiff was waiting in the yard, Carr was again 

released onto the yard and attacked plaintiff a second time. Plaintiff tried to run away, but Carr 

proceeded to beat, kick, and punch plaintiff as Garcia, Vargas, and Alvarez looked on. Other 

inmates broke up the fight. When plaintiff came to, he was in an ambulance on his way to the 

prison hospital. The doctor who examined plaintiff ordered him immediately sent to the 

emergency room at Natividad Medical Center. X-rays taken at the emergency room showed jaw 

bone and facial fractures as well as a hematoma from head injuries. Plaintiff received emergency 

surgery.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

Case 4:17-cv-03706-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/06/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 

must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Liberally construed, the allegations of the complaint state a Section 1983 for deliberate 

indifference to safety, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and conspiracy as against 

defendants Vargas, Alverez, and Garcia.

As noted, plaintiff also alleges retaliation. “Within the prison context, a viable claim of 

First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took 

some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and 

that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 

did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 

567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Prisoners may not be retaliated against for exercising 

Case 4:17-cv-03706-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/06/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

their First Amendment right of access to the courts, which right extends to a prisoner’s use of 

established prison grievance procedures. See Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(holding First Amendment guarantees right to seek redress of grievances from prison authorities). 

Thus, a prisoner may not be retaliated against for using such procedures. Id.; see Rhodes, 408 

F.3d at 567 (holding that without constitutional guarantees of right to file grievances and initiate 

court actions, “inmates would be left with no viable mechanism to remedy prison injustices”). 

Here, plaintiff has not alleged facts showing he was using established prison grievance procedures 

when he complained of Vargas’s falsifying of time cards, preventing plaintiff from completing his 

work shift. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether plaintiff was exercising his 

constitutionally protected First Amendment right of access to the courts when he made the 

complaint. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend to allege facts that cure the noted pleading 

deficiencies with respect to his claim that he was retaliated against.

Plaintiff also names CDCR Director Scott Kernan, SVSP Warden W.L. Muniz, Chief 

Medical Officer Lawrence Gamboa, and Medical Doctor Carl Bourne as defendants, but provides

no facts linking them to his allegations of wrongdoing. If plaintiff can, in good faith, allege facts 

to establish liability against these defendants, he may do so in his amended complaint. Plaintiff is 

advised that a supervisor is not liable merely because the supervisor is responsible, in general 

terms, for the actions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. 

Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may 

be liable only on a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a 

sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional 

violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff alleges that defendants have violated various sections of the California Penal 

Code. The claims are not cognizable here because there is no private right of action for the 

violation of criminal statutes. Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, plaintiff seeks to invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this court to address his 

claim that the actions of the defendants violated California tort law. Plaintiff fails to plead either 

the state law under which he seeks to proceed or to address the immunities barring state tort 

Case 4:17-cv-03706-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/06/17 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

actions against public employees.1 Accordingly, the claim is dismissed with leave to amend to 

state with specificity the state cause(s) of action under which plaintiff seeks to proceed and to 

allege facts linking defendants to his state cause(s) of action. 

CONCLUSION

The complaint states a cognizable Section 1983 claim against defendants Vargas, Alverez, 

and Garcia for deliberate indifference to safety, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 

and conspiracy. Leave to amend will be granted so that plaintiff may attempt to cure the pleading 

deficiencies discussed in this order in an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be 

filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. The pleading must be simple and concise 

and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (17-3706 HSG (PR)) and the 

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a 

blank civil rights form along with his copy of this order. 

If plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint, he shall so inform the Court within 

thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline 

will result in the dismissal of all claims except the claims found cognizable above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

 Under California law, a public employee is not liable for injury caused by his act or omission 

where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or 

not such discretion was abused. Cal. Govt. Code § 820.2; see also, Id. § 844.6 (California laws 

provide immunity for public entities from suit for injury to a prisoner).

9/6/2017

Case 4:17-cv-03706-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/06/17 Page 5 of 5